Under-World

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:31 pm

This can be included in the gene/meme context as well as with the A War Like No Other subject.

The Under-World is a world overshadowing reality, taking its place. A proverbial Platonic cave, where it is mistaken for the complete world when it is but a subterranean space, space of darkness where artificial lighting is mistaken for sunlight, and creatures roam in its cavernous, buried world of the living dead, and other such fantastic, creatures – creatures used as metaphors for psychological, memetic types.

***

The Under-World will be used not as a reference to some crime establishment functioning on the peripheries of society, or to some ancient-Greek or Christian hell.
Here, it will be used as a reference to the nihilistic civilization constructing an artificial, underlying, reality, which parallels but does not totally adhere to nature; a supernatural world, created by manmade artifices, and producing, as a collateral effect, all sorts of weird psychological types.
“Super,” in that it exceeds, exaggerates, represses, and redefines, reality, creating a hyper-real landscape populated with creatures that evolve within it, as a reaction to its premises and inescapable ubiquity.

***

This hyper-real, super-natural, environment, is a metaphorical way of describing the nihilistic world this dis-ease, of the mind, is now producing.
A dis-ease spreading to global proportions, as the contagion becomes viral, joining with other strains and adapting to the host-body by masking itself as another part of it.
The virus is memetic, though the examples that follow explore the many physical manifestations of this mental dis-ease; mind, and body, after all are part of the same emergent unity, the same self-organizing, self-sustaining, life-form.

***

Under-World is an exploration of the psychological types, emerging in a Modern world dominated by Nihilism, in the west; how genetics, as have been established through thousands of years, readjust to a meme that does not permit their full development, or does so selectively; how sheltering and specialization produce a reduction in overall awareness while, at the same time, also producing focused intellectualism, localized, and funnelled, ironically, emerging as obsessive, codependent, genius.
The method will be a Bottom<>Up advancement, as would be expected.
From the repressed personae, producing internal stresses, expressed as subconscious libidinal drives, going upwards towards the characters/caricatures this produces, as conscious expressions of these subconscious energies, and then further, when consciousness projects itself towards exaggerated idea(l)s, represented metaphorically, as the connecting nexus of mind/body, meme/gene, the demi-gods of ancient times, and our Modern super-heroes/super-villains.

The realm of the personae/personality Under-World (private self) giving way to the character/caricature of the implied Middle-World (public self), inspired and guided by a projected idea(l) Over-World (ideal self).
Where each realm begins and ends is a vague crossover, from instinct to reason, merging, coextensive; one bleeding into the next, overlapping coexisting, using symbols/words, techniques/technologies to become present/presence.

The extraordinary, surreal, supernatural creatures described are a mix of genes/memes; metaphorical descriptions of this obscure mingling of human past/nature and human present/culture.
Different "uni-verses" provide different symbolism, directing the metaphorical choices.
Image, names, dynamics adjust, but what is being exposed remains as it has always been - memetics, and their semiology, overlapping genetics with their established processes.

Nihilism imbues the individual caricature with the powers to fly above past/nature, and settle upon the earth selectively, choosing what place/time (s)he wills as his primary identifier - his costume.
But the choice is not his/her own. It is limited by the uni-verse, the metaphorical box of symbols, and costumes and monikers - avatars.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:37 pm

Image

Postman, Neil wrote:When we begin relying on the Internet for all of our news and information we will turn into a nation of zombies.

A Zombie is a made-up creature characterized by insatiable appetites and governed by a monomaniacal, brainless, obsessiveness.
Its goal is immediate and constant gratification – a hedonistic nightmare.
It is neither male nor female, because its sex is nothing more but a decaying remnant of a previous persona, resembling the tattered clothes falling off of its putrefying, rambling, form.
We cannot call it human, because it is not identifiable as anything reproductive. Calling it a “thing” should suffice.
It is a monstrosity, infected by some kind of modern disease which has overturned death and made it animated, in imitation of life.
This is why it serves as the perfect caricature, metaphor, symbol, for the common every-day, western, Americanized, feminized, man.

***

They would call me “old” and “outdated”, these children of backwards dreaming “progressiveness” and self-denying anabasis, towards self-annihilation; they would call me “primitive” and “stagnate”, these idealistic naïve hypocrites, of reverses and decline.
Their adolescent, uncomplicated, vacuity is now calling itself the height of human development, when it dreams of returning to the mud and it hopes for a reversion back into a state of unconscious invariance.
Those who have been stunted, from birth, taught to associate “maturity” with compromise, been made to believe that all change is an ascension, and all tolerance a virtue, now present themselves as the flag bearers of a coming “glorious” age where neither, nor anything else, will be distinguishable apart from the emptiness of words describing an ideal to end it all in a sudden paroxysm.
If anything, it is my message of continuing fragmentation towards greater and greater distinction, my desire to separate and distinguish, that should be called progress …for they only preach a return to some idealized past state of imagined unity, an affirmation of a singular thingness, pretending to be enlightenment, and whose only promise is an avoidance of reality and the sensation of existing as an ongoing process, which is truly primitive and backwards looking.

What is rotting is this not so youthful fatigue with reality and this desperate need to be re-assimilated within a pool of romanticized dirt.
But where does one end with the deconstruction?
If not the individual, then the species.
But why stop there?
If not the species then why not life, as a general common ground?
But why stop there?
Why not follow this string all the way out of this labyrinth and back, way back, to the absolute nothing or something?
If the denial of self is all these “young” revolutionary minds want, then why not just annul themselves and be done with the bullshit?
Let us “progress” backwards into the nothingness/somethingness which never was and never will be.
Let us imagine our own suicide as some moment of divine grace and call it inspiring.
No, I will only allow these rotting shells to “progress” all the way back to non-existence.
My own road takes me onward, into increasing fragmentation and distinction and discrimination ...into consciousness.
I resist this tide of conformity and self-negation, pushing onwards and onwards to an unknown and forever incomplete individuation.
I am more than self?
No, I am irrelevant without self.
The species is not the end of the line; otherwise it would be the end of all lines.
The species is merely a distinction, a type of life …as the individual is a distinction, a type within a type.
It is these types that are selected ...naturally…and through this selection higher types are formed …onwards and onwards, towards growing separation, growing distinction, growing discrimination, growing individuation…increasing entropy.

It isn’t I who is old and backward …it is they, with their tired ideals of uniformity and total assimilation.
They dream of the Big Bang as if it were a paradise, when it is a distancing from it which is what existence is …and the very concept of a Big Bang, scientifically speaking or not, is based on no absolute state …but on a near state.
It is this away from, which identifies; this rejection of, which characterizes.

No, no, no, dear nihilists, I embrace change, for without it I would not exist, and I embrace separation, for without it I would not be perceived or even be considered or even be.
It is you, you pretentious, artificial, youngsters, you zombies of hope, who have mistaken stupidity for progress, who hope for an end and no self, who are old and decrepit and cowardly and ...already beyond age ...for you are half-dead.

This is truly your time, your land ...your modern age of the living dead.
Your uniqueness is in how desperately you wish to be anything but different; anything but separate and other than ...and conscious of it.
Do you see yourselves?
How magnificently "free" you all are, roaming the urban landscapes, feeding on each other, mindlessly mumbling the same groans and tearing pieces from one another with your tender loving embraces and jagged-toothed smiles.

You will kill for this New World Man ...this enlightened Man who awakens to the "illusion" of self and conveniently finds himself reflected in void eye-sockets and repetitive drones.
Murder self, to save Self ...the New-Aged idol, for the needy heart who has "overcome" worship.
Your romantic ideal has shrunk, somewhat.
From a transcending God it is now an idealized Man, and from idolaters you have turned into humanitarians.

Now that is progress.

***

All is swept away in the cleansing tides.

The exceptional no less than the conventional linger, but for a time, languidly being turned into fine dust from which all impurities are deliberately taken out and anamnesis is turned to notoriety; more obviously so, the notable are sanctified, in this manner; their intolerable and so less useful parts thrown away and forgotten.
The remainder is then chiseled into desirable shapes and finely polished into shiny decorative icons for mass consumption.
The final product is then sold to desolate hearts wanting to weigh themselves down with mass, feeling the pull of the current, or wanting to be lost beneath the distractive effect of adornments so that they too may linger in memory, but for a while longer.

***

The slow deterioration of the living experience has this result.
All is notched-up in severity to deal with the loss.
Things have become so safe, so comfortable, that one needs to emulate risk, re-inject pain, exaggerate the sexual practice, to feel anything.
This is a consequence of numbness.

No fear, no risk, no price, no sacrifice ...all is made mute and the body falls into inebriated bliss. It shuffles, hungrily towards its next fix, consuming, consuming, consuming to fill in the void in its decaying flesh; wishing to quell the ache of existing.
Suffering and pain are turned into sensations to be avoided when they are nothing more than the sensation of existing.
But then the mind rebels against this zombification where flesh rots or is petrified so that it can no longer feel anything beneath a certain grade; it wants to feel what it means to be alive, knowing that soon this will no longer be an option.

***

The proverbial movie zombie, is a mindless, automaton, governed by pure hunger (need), deteriorating, rotting, driven to find healthy flesh to consume and replenish itself, in an ceaseless struggle to procure material so as to satisfy a hunger it cannot control nor escape.
It is now (2013) a popular symbol, constantly coming-up in modern art, for it so perfectly reflects the modern man.

***
Image

A Zombie is all about hunger, hedonism, feeding, corporeal compensation for a decaying body, and a rotten brain.
It has no historical background, no past. It is all about the immediate, the gratifying, and the shallow. It can only stumble towards some future; it drags itself towards any sound, any movement, promising action, a source of material fulfillment.
It congregates on mass, and feeds.

***

Zombies are individualistic, in that they follow their own need/hunger, towards the intended source of satiation, but their behavior is uniform, in that it is predictable and shared.
They are identities who adhere to a common behavioral patterns, which may, or may not, take a different path but, in the end, is headed towards the same, the common, the shared, object/objective.
In isolation, the Zombie is easily dealt with, because of its mindlessness, and slowness. Slow is what defines this creature – slow and methodical.
It is when zombies become part of a group, attracted by a shared stimulation, when they become a force to be reckoned with.
Zombies, much like simple organisms, animals, need not have a sense of self, a shared identity, nor even come from the same background, wear the same rags, or have to have experienced the same things in the same ways, because it is their shared hunger, the binding need, the lack, which makes them a singular category.

Reason for editing
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:40 pm

Image

What herd would be complete without a predator?
Kidding aside the vampire metaphor is about the emotional kind of feeding.
I draw from popular lore and make parallels with general personality types:  
Emotional Vampires are those elites who having identified the living-dead – the proverbial brain-dead, hedonistic, Zombies – feed off of their emotionalism, exploiting it and the need it is founded upon.

There are many versions of the vampire caricature, but the modern version has a distinctly erotic flare.
The brain-dead Vampires are easy prey, so this elite type tends to toy with their insatiable hunger, finding very little emotional nutrition in their decaying sensibilities, and growing detachment from reality.
As a result the emotional vampire will turn on his own, forcing internal ruptures that separate this kind into factions.    

***

The immortality of the vampire represents this type’s connection to its past, creating a long, undisturbed lineage, which, compared to the immediacy of the zombie, can be considered timeless.

***

Eroticism is the undeniable characteristic of the Vampire.
(S)He is a predator of emotion and lust/love is the king of all emotions; it is the emotion of unbridled hunger indicative of a zombification.
With lust/love the need, hunger, takes over, and nothing else matters.
Fear would cause a pause, a moment of restraint, before the flight/flight mechanism takes over, but with love the organism is drawn forward, uncaring, unconcerned, totally given over to the object/objective of his desire.
 
When a Vampire sucks the blood, he is absorbing the heart’s essence, the body’s need, its lack, its hunger, spilling out of the organism as a grasping, a clutching.
The seductive allure of the vampire, its eroticism, is a mechanism to draw the victim towards him/her.
Need feeding on need.
The Zombie is blind, brainless, unrestrained need.
The Vampire is focused hunger.
The Zombie feeds on matter, on the substantial, on the physical.
The Vampire feeds on emotion, on thoughts, on the abstract.

These creatures coexist but occupy different spheres of existence.

The Vampire comes out at night, it is conspicuous and shy.
The Zombie, in most variants, is a day and night feeder, and is mostly found in urban environments where masses of people congregate.
The Vampire enters the city only because that is where its prey can be found in large numbers.    

***

Vampires prefer the warm-blooded, the ones still full of vital energies, but the world has changed and Zombification has made warm-bloodedness increasingly rare. Coagulating blood, barely flowing within decaying veins, is all which is available in these modern times.

***

Both these creatures of the modern, nihilistic, Dark Age, have shared behavior. They prefer to feed on human flesh and drink human blood, and by “human”, and in line with the theme, I mean virile, healthy, natural, man.
We may call him a Pagan, an Aryan, a European.
The type is in decline and is nearly extinct due to this predation.
As a consequence these Zombies and Vampires turn on each other, finding there a lower grade prey, because the undead cannot be invigorated by another undead.

Image

In its original conception a Vampire had distinct Semitic features.
A frail, ugly, hunched-over, caricature, with long fingers, a big nose and ears, and fangs covered over by thin lips.
A bloodsucker, a miser, a collector of virility.
He organizes into a subversive, ancient, clan around a shared covenant. They have their own rules, and live a hidden life.  

In our time the bloodthirsty, night crawler has become sexy.
A metrosexual male, a vixen, feeding on the libidinal energies of its prey.
And if resources have now been abstracted into monetary units, then the feeding takes on different characteristics.

***

What differentiates the Vampire from the Zombie, or the Werewolf, for that matter?
Both Zombie and Vampire are immortal, if they are not beheaded; both are defined by hunger; both prefer the dark and are creatures of the supernatural, the underworld.
It is awareness and connection to the past.
A Zombie is totally in the present. It has no conception of past, or of future.
Its entire existence is dominated by its need/hunger, and the object of tis desire, the moving, acting, thing that it feels it needs to devour to keep on going, to deal with its own decay.  
The Vampire, on the other hand, has a clear and well-defined, sense of identity.
So much so, that it now organizes itself into clans, governed by specific rules of conduct and hierarchies – different than those governing the prey they feed on, but, nevertheless, just as stringent.
In a sense Vampires have their own morality.
What they show the world, when they do, is very different from what they are, in the dark, and amongst their own kind.

A Vampire sucks the living essence out of a life form, its virility, whereas a Zombie feeds on the flesh.
There is very little life force in a Zombie and so it makes a poor meal for a Vampire, yet, in an ironic twist of fate, the viral agent that turns the healthy human into a brain-dead, decaying, mound of flesh and bones, comes from the Vampire, and is spread into the prey in an earlier encounter.
If the prey is fed Vampire blood before it perishes, it turns into another Vampire, adding itself to the clan, if not it becomes a member of the walking dead Zombies.
The ritual of “turning” involves a turning of the tables, where the prey drinks of the predator’s essence.
With Zombies the virus is transmitted by a bite, if the prey is not totally consumed.
The Werewolf is an altogether other matter. It is mortal, and motivated by sheer rage. The Werewolf gene is transmitted through the normal human reproductive methods, and it is triggered by specific events and natural cycles.

***

A distinctive feature of the Vampire is its secrecy.
It comes out at night, it mingles with its prey, it participates in underground covenants and in secret rituals.
The feeding on blood is a metaphor for money, the blood and sweat of the individual, the product of its labor, and/or of the essence of the other, its emotions, its reactions.
In both cases we are dealing with (inter)activities.
The Vampire feeds on the byproduct of the other's (inter)activity, its relating and relationships, and the many forms these take.

The emotional-Vampire, related to the internet Troll, is an individual hungering for passion.
Reason, rationality, objectivity only matter if they promise a passionate outcome.
There are different types of emotional-Vampires each corresponding to the different emotions, the different passions, each ha a taste for.
There is no reasoning with such creatures.
They are blood-thirsty.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:40 pm

Image

What herd would be complete without a predator?
Kidding aside the vampire metaphor is about the emotional kind of feeding.
I draw from popular lore and make parallels with general personality types:  
Emotional Vampires are those elites who having identified the living-dead – the proverbial brain-dead, hedonistic, Zombies – feed off of their emotionalism, exploiting it and the need it is founded upon.

There are many versions of the vampire caricature, but the modern version has a distinctly erotic flare.
The brain-dead Vampires are easy prey, so this elite type tends to toy with their insatiable hunger, finding very little emotional nutrition in their decaying sensibilities, and growing detachment from reality.
As a result the emotional vampire will turn on his own, forcing internal ruptures that separate this kind into factions.    

***

The immortality of the vampire represents this type’s connection to its past, creating a long, undisturbed lineage, which, compared to the immediacy of the zombie, can be considered timeless.

***

Eroticism is the undeniable characteristic of the Vampire.
(S)He is a predator of emotion and lust/love is the king of all emotions; it is the emotion of unbridled hunger indicative of a zombification.
With lust/love the need, hunger, takes over, and nothing else matters.
Fear would cause a pause, a moment of restraint, before the flight/flight mechanism takes over, but with love the organism is drawn forward, uncaring, unconcerned, totally given over to the object/objective of his desire.
 
When a Vampire sucks the blood, he is absorbing the heart’s essence, the body’s need, its lack, its hunger, spilling out of the organism as a grasping, a clutching.
The seductive allure of the vampire, its eroticism, is a mechanism to draw the victim towards him/her.
Need feeding on need.
The Zombie is blind, brainless, unrestrained need.
The Vampire is focused hunger.
The Zombie feeds on matter, on the substantial, on the physical.
The Vampire feeds on emotion, on thoughts, on the abstract.

These creatures coexist but occupy different spheres of existence.

The Vampire comes out at night, it is conspicuous and shy.
The Zombie, in most variants, is a day and night feeder, and is mostly found in urban environments where masses of people congregate.
The Vampire enters the city only because that is where its prey can be found in large numbers.    

***

Vampires prefer the warm-blooded, the ones still full of vital energies, but the world has changed and Zombification has made warm-bloodedness increasingly rare. Coagulating blood, barely flowing within decaying veins, is all which is available in these modern times.

***

Both these creatures of the modern, nihilistic, Dark Age, have shared behavior. They prefer to feed on human flesh and drink human blood, and by “human”, and in line with the theme, I mean virile, healthy, natural, man.
We may call him a Pagan, an Aryan, a European.
The type is in decline and is nearly extinct due to this predation.
As a consequence these Zombies and Vampires turn on each other, finding there a lower grade prey, because the undead cannot be invigorated by another undead.

Image

In its original conception a Vampire had distinct Semitic features.
A frail, ugly, hunched-over, caricature, with long fingers, a big nose and ears, and fangs covered over by thin lips.
A bloodsucker, a miser, a collector of virility.
He organizes into a subversive, ancient, clan around a shared covenant. They have their own rules, and live a hidden life.  

In our time the bloodthirsty, night crawler has become sexy.
A metrosexual male, a vixen, feeding on the libidinal energies of its prey.
And if resources have now been abstracted into monetary units, then the feeding takes on different characteristics.

***

What differentiates the Vampire from the Zombie, or the Werewolf, for that matter?
Both Zombie and Vampire are immortal, if they are not beheaded; both are defined by hunger; both prefer the dark and are creatures of the supernatural, the underworld.
It is awareness and connection to the past.
A Zombie is totally in the present. It has no conception of past, or of future.
Its entire existence is dominated by its need/hunger, and the object of tis desire, the moving, acting, thing that it feels it needs to devour to keep on going, to deal with its own decay.  
The Vampire, on the other hand, has a clear and well-defined, sense of identity.
So much so, that it now organizes itself into clans, governed by specific rules of conduct and hierarchies – different than those governing the prey they feed on, but, nevertheless, just as stringent.
In a sense Vampires have their own morality.
What they show the world, when they do, is very different from what they are, in the dark, and amongst their own kind.

A Vampire sucks the living essence out of a life form, its virility, whereas a Zombie feeds on the flesh.
There is very little life force in a Zombie and so it makes a poor meal for a Vampire, yet, in an ironic twist of fate, the viral agent that turns the healthy human into a brain-dead, decaying, mound of flesh and bones, comes from the Vampire, and is spread into the prey in an earlier encounter.
If the prey is fed Vampire blood before it perishes, it turns into another Vampire, adding itself to the clan, if not it becomes a member of the walking dead Zombies.
The ritual of “turning” involves a turning of the tables, where the prey drinks of the predator’s essence.
With Zombies the virus is transmitted by a bite, if the prey is not totally consumed.
The Werewolf is an altogether other matter. It is mortal, and motivated by sheer rage. The Werewolf gene is transmitted through the normal human reproductive methods, and it is triggered by specific events and natural cycles.

***

A distinctive feature of the Vampire is its secrecy.
It comes out at night, it mingles with its prey, it participates in underground covenants and in secret rituals.
The feeding on blood is a metaphor for money, the blood and sweat of the individual, the product of its labor, and/or of the essence of the other, its emotions, its reactions.
In both cases we are dealing with (inter)activities.
The Vampire feeds on the byproduct of the other's (inter)activity, its relating and relationships, and the many forms these take.

The emotional-Vampire, related to the internet Troll, is an individual hungering for passion.
Reason, rationality, objectivity only matter if they promise a passionate outcome.
There are different types of emotional-Vampires each corresponding to the different emotions, the different passions, each ha a taste for.
There is no reasoning with such creatures.
They are blood-thirsty.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:43 pm

Image
Another creature of the night.
This one is a creature born of cycles, environmental conditions stimulating an internal rage.
A Werewolf will appear normal, most of the time, even timid, kind, submissive, a dog wagging its tail, but inside another beast is churning.
It collects its humility, its repressed sexuality, its hidden pain, until, under the right circumstances – some full moon or some such event – it unleashes its fury into the night.
Bipolar may be the psychological term for it, except for the fact that this kind is mostly male.  

***

It would not be uncommon to find Werewolves amongst the addictive personality type. In their fits of irrepressible rage, they find ways to numb their affliction down to a session of binge drinking, or to a daily routine of self-medicating numbness.  

***

A Werewolf is still a canine, at heart.
A social creature prone to assimilate, easily, within groups.
The werewolf is the result of this disparity between the current nihilistic, anti-natural, milieu, and the nature of the organism being forced to assimilate within it.
This disparity creates frictions, above and beyond the usual self-repression and emasculation, involved in integrating within a social hierarchy where the dominant position is already occupied.
The organism is forced to integrate within a social structure which is totally alienating; abstracting its contexts to the point where they lose all reference to the real.
This alienation, this out of place, out of sorts, feeling builds until it explodes as rage. The beast awakens, in the dark, and it must be released, to run and to feed.
But it cannot, and so it inebriates itself. It must find a way to calm those parts down, contain them, make its self artificially happy, wag the tail, to get along.    

Image
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:45 pm

Image

Movie Quote wrote:Louis: You see that old woman? That will never happen to you. You will never grow old, and you will never die.
Claudia: And it means something else too, doesn't it? I shall never ever grow up.

A Vampire lives in a state of temporal suspension.
Within this culture of perpetual adolescence, the caricature/creature reflects the eternal youth worshiping its own condition.
Beneath God, the children of the Book, the covenant of Darkness, are promised eternal life, and an eternity of childish dependence.
All they must do is sacrifice light.
Their decrepit misery has now become sexy; their rage has been turned to the erotic.
They offer it as a salvation to those who share their hatred of life.

Movie Quote wrote:Lestat: You are a vampire who never knew what life was until it ran out in a big gush over your lips.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideal: you must die before you can appreciate life, and experience a higher existence; the triad of spiritual nihilism.  
Life leaves through the mouth and an eternity is spent sucking it out of others.
Resentment finding satisfaction in its eternity of vengeance.
It spends eternity, as a god, taking from mortals what he could never appreciate and have in himself.
Having sold his soul, he condemns himself to a timeless childish ennui.
His knowledge, his experiences, possesses no substance in him.
He is aloof, disconnected, detached.
His existence an endless wandering within a world he cannot relate to – having become ethereal, supernatural, and other-worldly.

The God of death, the life hater, is reborn through a messiah.
Nihilistic role reversals.
The life spirit, the Daemonion, becomes Evil, Satanic, associated with the goat, the sacrificial symbol of human fear.
Nature is turned into Lucifer: the illusion, the fake.
Nature is turned into Lucifer: the illusion, the fake. Darkness is the new light; the under-world is now the real world; the supernatural replaces the natural.               

Movie Quote wrote: Louis: I'm flesh and blood, but not human. I haven't been human for two hundred years.  

The Vampire knows he is not human, that he is inhuman, but humans have what he need: vigor, a connection to reality, to nature.
He needs this to invigorate his dead blood, to transfuse him with new living energy, more spirit.
Unlike Zombies, who are totally given over to the need/hunger, Vampires have a clear sense of identity: as the chosen ones.  
Chosen by others like them, and after a ritualistic denial of life, they are reborn amongst the living dead.  

Movie Quote wrote:Armand: The world changes, we do not, there lies the irony that finally kills us.

The final nihilistic realization. Only a lucid living-dead, can come to it.
The Nihilistic dilemma.
The world in Flux and they? A meme that has remained in opposition, outside its temporal and spatial boundaries, desiring to escape its suffering.
The nihilist discovers the irony and so discovers the comedy in the tragedy.
In the real world the nihilist is always comical, cynical, always laughing at his own condition, and at those light dwellers …those delightful, delicious, energized by the sun, those warm-blooded humans.
He has excluded himself form the world, denounced it as unsatisfactory, and therein, as Armand says, lies the irony of his coming demise.  
 
Movie Quote wrote:Lestat: Evil is a point of view. God kills indiscriminately and so shall we. For no creatures under God are as we are, none so like him as ourselves.

The chosen people are now the agents of God.
They kill those who live under the sun, feeding on the energy of light, they being creatures of darkness, of the cave, of the underworld, of the inconspicuous underhanded hidden world.

Movie Quote wrote:Louis: That morning I was not yet a vampire, and I saw my last sunrise. I remember it completely, and yet I can't recall any sunrise before it. I watched the whole magnificence of the dawn for the last time as if it were the first. And then I said farewell to sunlight, and set out to become what I became

Louis speaks of light.
Apollo has been denied.
He enters the caverns of Hades, and stops before the river Lethe, denying himself a drink. No, those who must drink are those who shall become the chattel, the mindless Zombies.  

Movie Quote wrote:Armand: They had forgotten the first lesson, that we are to be powerful, beautiful, and without regret.
Louis: And you can teach me this?
Armand: Yes.
Louis: To be without regret?
Armand: Yes.
Louis: Then what a pair we could make, but what if it's a lesson I don't care to learn.
Armand: What do you mean?
Louis: What if all I have is my suffering, my regret?
Armand: Don't you want to lose it?
Louis: Why? So you can have that too? The heart that mourns her, her that you burnt to a cinder.
Armand: Louis, I swear that I...
Louis: Ah, but I know you did. I know. You who regrets nothing, you who feels nothing, if that's all I have left to learn, I can do that on my own.

The older Vampire has a new solution.
No regret, meaning no guilt.
The vampire is secularized. He wishes to lose that primordial guilt and that inherited shame.
He will be proud of his death, and exist as if he were another animal; another hunter of the night.
He wants to reconnect with what he detached from.

Louis senses that this loss entails a loss of identity.
He will no longer be true to what he is.

***
"Do you know what it is to be loved by death?"
And what is the Judeo-Christian God, but the Death presenting Himself as a lover?


The adaptation of Zionism.
To lose "regret" ...guilt, shame.
An evolution, from the old, Orthodox ways.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:51 pm

Satyr wrote:I see the pagan roots subjected to a Christian working over.

I see a symbolic connection in the different supernatural caricatures:

Zombie = nihilist (Christian, Muslim, Marxist, secular Humanist). The human herd, reduced to a materialistic, hedonistic, modern.

Vampire = Jew (from the monstrous blood sucker to an immortal sexy demi-god). Same as the Zombie but only in possession of his identity. This last gives him the immortal character and also his power.
He strips the other of what he retains. He takes it from them.

Werewolf = The instinctive rage, finding an outlet out of its nihilistic repression. innate energies still lingering under the civilized surfaces.




Heraclitus' fragment D.119 reads, "Ethos Anthropoi Daimon".

To which, we can recall, Kahn commenting the following on it:


"CXIV (D. 119) Man's character is his fate (literally, his daimon or divinity).

The doctrine of CXIV has been discussed above in commenting on XCVI-CXII. (See especially pp. 252f.) Here I consider the literal interpretation of this marvellously brief and symmetrical three-word utterance: ethos anthropoi daimon, 'character, for man daimon. The meaning of the sentence depends on the sense given to daimon.

On the simplest view daimon signifies one's destiny, one's pros- perity or misfortune. Although in Homer and other authors the word is often used synonymously with theos 'god' (as in LVII, D. 79), the root meaning of daimon is 'one who distributes or assigns a portion'. This etymological value shows up in the two common compounds: eudaimon 'with a favorable daimon\ 'happy', 'prosperous', 'fortunate'; and kakodaimon, 'with a bad (unfavorable) daimon\ 'unlucky', 'miserable'. Hence the most obvious sense of CXIV is that it is a man's own character, not some external power, that assigns to him the quality of his life, his fortune for good or for ill. His lot is determined by the kind of person he is, by the kind of choices he habitually makes, and by the psychophysical consequences they entail or to which they correspond. And since the fate of the psyche after death will be a direct prolongation of its life and death, one's destiny now and to come is a function of one's basic choice between a noble and a bestial career. The cause is not in the stars but in ourselves.

This primary meaning of CXIV is further enriched if we take daimon literally as 'god* or 'divinity'. For the gods of Heraclitus, the immortals who live our deaths and are dead in our lives, can only be the elemental powers and constituents of the cosmos, from which our life comes and to which it returns. (Again the terminology of Heraclitus anticipates that of Empedocles, who designates his four elements as daimones in fr. 59.) The character of a man is thus identified with the corresponding element: moisture for the sensualists and topers, wasteful fire for the choleric, damp or smoky vapors for the souls of most men, a gleam of light for the wisest and best. These cosmic divinities are not merely emblematic of different kinds of lives,, like Aphrodite and Artemis in Euripides' Hippolytus. They constitute the physical explanation or psychophysical identity of the particular life in question, the elemental equivalent of a given moral and intellectual character. So read, CXIV offers a concentrated resume of the doctrine of the dozen fragments just discussed.

A third reading emerges as a special case of the other two, if we recall Hesiod's use of daimones for the spirits of the golden race, become watchmen of justice after their death. I have suggested that in CX (D. 63) these guardian spirits are identified with the wisest and best souls, looking down from above as radiant light or astral fire. For the select souls too it is the character of the man that determines his fate as daimon, as occupant or visitor in the highest region of mortality, the celestial terminus of the upward path."


Sloterdijk in 'You Must Change Your Life' makes a series of remarks on the same fragment:

"Heraclitus was an ethicist, not an anthropologist. The first ethics deals with a difference among humans that first becomes explicit through thought - or perhaps one should call it becoming aware of the logos dimension. Heraclitus' misanthropy is the fanfare that opens the expli­cation. It shows how the difference within each human manifests itself as a difference between humans. If Heraclitus places the many and the few in stark opposition to each other, it is not because his thought is elitist, but rather because he is among the first of those who became specifically aware of the thought that has always been acting unno­ticed within us - and who thus actualized the difference between the thinking, or more precisely those attentive to the logos, and the others, the inattentive ones, in the first place. He could not have done this if he had not first established within himself the predominance of thought over non-thought - or rather of having good sense (sophronein), which Fragment thus terms the greatest virtue (arete megiste).

It is precisely from this gesture, the subordination of non-good sense to good sense, that ethics comes about as First Theory. Consequently, ethics can only take the form of a duel between man and himself - though this duel can be externalized as a provocation of those who evade it. From its first word, the first ethics already deals with the difference between that which is above and that which is below, yet usually strives to reach the top. This 'ethics' as a primary orientation has an immediate 'ontological' sense, provided it contains the thesis 'sophronein exists'. It would be a theoreticistic reduction of this state­ment, however, if it were used to express no more than its proposi­tional content. It is an authoritative, spurring and tonic statement that confronts its addressees with the challenge: 'Give precedence to sophronein!' The oldest version of the metanoetic imperative already demands that humans distinguish between the upper and the lower within themselves."


-

"That the primal ethical directive 'You must change your life!' becomes acute in the pre-Socratic word sophronein - and with a manifestly practice-theoretical tendency - can be explained with reference to a thought formulated by Plato a hundred years after Heraclitus in a greatly admired passage from book four of the Republic (430e-432b), dealing with prudence (sophrosyne) in the individual and in the polis. There, prudence is defined first of all as 'dominance over the desires' (epithymion epikrdteia)...
Then Socrates draws our attention to the peculiarity of the self-relationship to which this refers:... 'in man himself' (en auto to anthropo) there is evidently a better and a worse side relating to the soul (peri ten psychen). This matter, which is no laughing one, emerges in actu in twofold fashion: in the reflections formulated here and in the life conditions they address. If the part that is by nature (physei) better rules over the worse part, one calls this being stronger than oneself or superiority over oneself and rightly praises it. If the situation is inverted, however, and the worse part - which is also the larger - overpowers the better - which is naturally smaller - one speaks of being weaker than or inferior to oneself, and rebukes it accordingly. The further applications of these reflections result from the maxim of all political psychology: as in the psyche, so in the polis.

Naturally one could, in the style of the sociologizations still cus­ tomary today, raise the objection that Plato's talk of self-superiority was a projection of Greek class structures onto the psyche. Then one could - in the mode of the utopianism that is no longer so common - add that in a classless society, the self-relations of the psyche would be rebuilt into flat hierarchies, or even complete anarchies without any above-below difference to speak of. These objections, however, miss the essence of paideia.
The idea of restraint comes from an inter­nalization of the differences between teacher and pupil, or trainer and athlete, possibly also between rider and horse, which have nothing to do with dominance in the usual sense. The relationship between the aristocracy and the rabble only provides a metaphor for these condi­tions, and to take it literally would be to misunderstand the autono­mous laws of figurative speech. In truth, a manifestation of verticality emerges in paideia that cannot be depicted by, let alone reduced to, political dominance. That does not, of course, mean that the matter is automatically understood by its carriers, namely the operators and patients of training.

The basic confusion of Greek ethics, as well as the art of education connected to it, comes from the fact that it never managed to work out the difference between passions and habits with the necessary clarity - which is why it also never clearly articulated the correspond­ing difference between dominance and practice. The consequences are evident in over two millennia of ambiguity in European pedagogy - initially it often suffocated its pupils with authoritarian discipline by treating them as subjects, while later on it increasingly addressed them as false adults and released them from all discipline and practis­ing tension. The fact that pupils are initially and mostly burgeoning athletes - not to say acrobats - who must be brought into shape was, because of the moralistic and political mystification of pedagogy, never pointed out as explicitly as a matter of such import would require .

For the time being, nothing seems simpler than the thought that exist­ing passions, destructive intensities or obsessions demand restrain­ing - that is, dominance - while habits are not given a priori, but must rather be built up in longer periods of training and practice; they grow through mimetic repetitive behaviour, but turn into a will-supported autonomous effort at a certain point in their development. As elementary as the distinction between habits and passions may seem, however, the association of these two factors has led to the most diverse confusions throughout the history of ethical thought."


-

"Now one sees clearly how this archaic three-word wonder ethos anthropo daimon itself formally demonstrates what it is talking about: the word 'man' stands in the middle between the two all too easily confused ethical factors - habits on the left, passions on the right. Whatever other meanings ethos can have, it unmistakably refers here to that which is habitual, moral and conventional, while the word daimon indicates the higher power, the overpowering and supra-habitual force.

If one accepts these semantic deliberations serving the illumination of the two opaque terms, two new ways of translating Heraclitus' phrase arise. The first would be: 'Among humans, bad habits are the overpowering force.' The second is: 'New good habits in humans can gain control over the most intense passions.'"


-

"The original ethical confusion in European philosophy manifests itself in two complementary and time-honoured errors that run through the history of reflections on the question of how humans should live: in the first, the restraining of passions is confused with the exorcism of base demons, and in the second, the overcoming of bad habits is confused with illumination through higher spirits. The Stoic and Gnostic movements, with their striving for apathy or a speedy escape to the world above, are representative of the former, and the Platonic and mystical traditions, with their inclination to kill off the flesh or pass over embodied existence, of the latter. That these attrac­tive errors did not become the mainstream is due to the resistance of the pragmatic ethical systems, which were aided by the anonymous wisdom of everyday cultures. The anti­-extremist projects of Aristotelian, Epicurean and sceptic provenance mostly achieved a fruitful balance between vertical passion, that is to say the restraining of desires, and the horizontal effort, namely the imitation and cultivation of good habits. They surveyed the difficult terrain in which the two primary directions of movement, the spread­ings and the ascents, make their demands.

If one reads the ethos-daimon statement directly alongside Socrates' words about the restraining of passions, one understands better the path on which Old European thought found itself confronted with what was termed 'possession' in religious contexts. In its older usage, the word daimon reminds us that being human and being possessed were initially practically the same. Whoever has no daimon has no soul that accompanies, augments and moves them, and whoever lacks such a soul does not exist - they are merely a walking corpse, or at best an anthropomorphic plant. If one now places the terms ethos and daimon so closely together that anthropo is directly between them, one sees how the human being is fundamentally bound between two forms of possession. Possessed by habits and inertias, it appears under-animated and mechanized; possessed by passions and ideas, it is over-animated and manically overloaded. The form and degree of its animation are thus entirely dependent on the mode and tone of its possession - and on the integration of the occupier into its own self. The majority of people throughout history have only acknowledged the latter, the psychistic or passionate side of possession (as appar­ent in ancient notions of accompanying demons, invasive demons, personal geniuses and evil spirits in a wealth of images); it observes with concern its negative, de-animation, dispiritedness, depression. The early philosophers, on the other hand, the first gurus and educa­tors, increasingly concentrate, in the morning light of their art, on the second front, the 'habit creature' side of the human condition. One could speak here of the habitual or hexic forms of possession (from Latin habitus, 'habit' and Greek hexis, 'possession, inner property, habit'). It represents possession by a non-spirit, a taking over of humans by the embodied mechanism."


-

"To understand how humanity's dual possession was brought to an end by the ethical-ascetic Enlightenment, one must consider that the history of anthropological and pedagogical thought in Europe was, in the long run, identical to a progressive secularization of the psyche - that is, identical to the conversion of the logic of possession into programmes of discipline. In the course of these programmes, posses­sions of the first type are reformulated as enthusiasms and sorted into advantageous - recall Plato's list of the four good forms of enthusi­asm or madness in Phaedrus - and harmful ones. Among the latter, wrath, thirst for fame and greed stand out; in Christian times, these were included among the Seven Deadly Sins. As they are no longer official forms of possession, only their functional successors, they are no longer driven out through exorcism but rather tamed through dis­cipline, using the crudest of methods if need be .

The statements of Aurelius Augustinus, nine hundred years after Heraclitus, can also be placed in this progressing line: in his text On True Religion, he calls on Christians to become 'men' by subduing (subiugare) the 'women' in themselves, these 'blandishments and troubles of desire' - a task that faces women in analogous fashion, because they should likewise be man enough 'in Christ' to subju­gate the womanly desires (femineas voluptates) in themselves. Here Augustine still clings firmly to the schema of the Platonic psychagog­ics of affect: dominate that which would otherwise dominate us; gain possession of that which would otherwise possess us. Because he embeds it in a theology of the devil, the tendency towards a re­demonization of the passions always remains present. It is palpable here how the repressive understanding of asceticism, as a dictator­ship over the 'inner nature', begins its triumphal march through the Christian centuries.

As far as the second type of possession, habit, is concerned, its secularization leads to the concept of self-education, which includes a discreet self-exorcism: the human being owned by its habits must succeed in reversing the conditions of ownership and taking control of that which has it by having it itself. This applies above all to the bad habits that are to be replaced by good ones. Thus Thomas a Kempis, still fully in the tradition of the first educators, writes: 'Habit overcomes habit.' In the more radical spiritual practice systems, the demand for a breaking of habitual conditionings is still being expanded to the neutral, even 'good' habits - for example, in the theatre pedagogy of Constantin Stanislavski or the 'Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man' founded in October 1922 in Fontainebleau by George Ivanovich Gurdjieff. From the perspective of the radicals, the habitus basis of human existence is, as a whole, no more than a spiritually worthless puppet theatre into which a free ego-soul must be implanted after the fact, and through the great­est effort. If this fails, one experiences an effect in most people that is familiar from many athletes and models: they make a promising visual impression - but if one knocks, no one is at home. According to these doctrines, the adept can only rid themselves of their baggage by subjecting their life to a rigorous practice regime by which they can de-automatize their behaviour in all important dimensions. At the same time, they must re-automatize their newly learned behaviour so that what they want to be or represent becomes second nature."


-

In the thread 'Psyche', Satyr writes,

"The Greeks studied human psychology and thought of the ψυχη as a rider on a horse:
The rider was reason...the stirrups were the will... and the horse was passion.
Reason>Will>Passion

The order is important because it indicates the balance between different aspects of the human condition.

Will=Spirit
Reason=Mind
Passion=Body

The Jews changed the balance.
They placed Will before Reason.
Will>Reason>Passion
Need preceded perception....warping it to accommodate the desired.

For the Christians the triadic symbols changed:
God=Reason/Mind
Holy Spirit=Will/Spirit
Jesus=Passion/Body

For me the order became:
Passion>Will>Reason

Although they retained the illusion of the Hellenic balance, in truth they associated with Jesus, the symbol of their relationship to the world, and then subjugated their reason to their Will...projecting a Deity, using imagination, directed by physical need.
God is a secondary matter, though it takes up the top of the projected pyramid. In this world, which is the inversion of their projections, God, as a symbol of reason/mind, is at the bottom. He cannot be attained, nor even understood....he is Beyond their capacities, and can only be approached to sit beside Him, or under Him.
Reason/Mind is other than them...to approach it one must die.
God only dominates in the Beyond...in a perfect world.
It is the willed for, passionately. The entity in charge is passion, anthropomorphized as a lamentable figure: Jesus.
He suffers, having been thrown down by the Jewish Deity, to endure this existence.

Passion became so dominant in this imperfect world of the downfallen, that it had to be denied, forgotten.
One had to pretend it was not there, or adopt the Hellenic order, and be convinced that he is in control of passion when, in fact, passion is crucified out of existence.
Christians lament over their dead passions.
But are the passions dead, or have they be sent back, resurrected, purified, and still lord over them?
The passions were not killed, they were purified through death, bringing them into contact with an other-worldy reason, returning with decrees:
Biblical Commandments...meant to harness the passions to reason which lay beyond their capacity to justify or to understand.
The Will was external to them.
The crucifixion represents the death of man’s passions, after they’ve been punished for being as they are. The passions are not to be controlled, but killed; murdered in public display, so as to never allow them to return.
But man cannot return, like Christ, cleansed. He must endure, in waiting, for his own physical death, to be liberated from his own passions, and his own will and his own reason. Until then he remains passion…for his reason and will are sacrificed to his Deity, as proof of his commitment."


To sum up,

Man is rocked between two kinds of possessions;

Habit - a moral conventional ethos that can be related to the Xt. Zombie, and,
Passion - the overwhelming eruption of eros that can be related to the Jewish Vampire.

Real Asceticism is Athleticism, or as Sloterdijk phrases it - its being "Sleepless in Ephesus" :

"If one had to say in one sentence what constituted thought in the Ionic era, the answer would be: thinking means being sleepless in Ephesus - sacrificing one's nights in Miletus. One can almost take this literally, as the proximity of the Ionians to the Chaldean tradi­tions of nocturnal celestial observation may also have bred in them a tendency towards intellectual night work; the contempt of the waking for the sleeping belongs to the basic inventory of intellectual athletism. As Heraclitus' fragments tell us, the distinction between diurnal and nocturnal activity is meaningless for waking thought. The waking that is unified with thinking performs the only asceticism that can help the first philosophy get into shape. As waking thought, it is pure discipline - an acrobatics of sleeplessness. If it does not virtually unify the thinker with the ever-wakeful logos, it certainly brings them close together. It is no coincidence that some of Heraclitus' harshest words deal with the dependence of ordinary people on sleep. For him, hoi polloi are none other than the people who do not awaken to the shared (koinon) in the morning, but instead remain in their private world, their dreamy idiocy, as if they had some special knowledge (jdian phr6nesin). These are the same who also sleep through reli­gious matters, as it were - they think they are purifying themselves by soiling themselves with blood, 'just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud'. Trapped in their own worlds, people do not hear what the non-sleepers have to say to them. If one speaks to them of the all-pervading logos, they merely shrug their shoulders. They see nothing of the One, even though they are sub­merged in it. They act as if they were seeking God, yet he is standing in front of them.

The Xt. Zombies are the ones who sleep through the night and never awaken in the day, the Jewish Vampires are the ones who sleep through the day forced into their own private worlds unable to bear the harsh reality of the day.
As regards the werewolf, Jung's essay on Wotan as the restless, never sleeping undercurrent flowing through 'night' and 'day', the low and high cycles of a culture with periodic flashes fits not only with Sloterdijk's phrase "sleepless in ephesus", but also heraclitus' own saying Dionysos and Hades are the same.
The hyper-inflation of the ego in Xt. characterizes its Narcissism, and the self-splitting compartmentalization of the actor in the jew characterizes its Schizophrenia.
The Zombie is Narcissistic - the onflux of having everyone the same as itself, a self-same swarm, while the Vampire is essentially Schizoid dealing with mortality and immortality in the same being and body, plus the mindset of a forever Self and Other, a Chosen one.[/quote][/quote]

*****
The Metaphorical Supernatural triad goes like this:

Vampire - covert, sexual/seductive, Dandy/Metrosexual, feminine - erotic  Modern >>> Zombies mindless, emotionless, witless, asexual/multisexual - emotionless/detached, Modern <<< Werewolves - overt, sexual/dominant, masculine - thymotic Modern

All coexist, and are part of the same infectious memetic paradigm, and it is obvious that they find in each other an inferior prey.
They prefer natural, healthy, warmblooded vigorous prey.

All three go through a transformation due to the infection, the memetic virus.
The first two experience it as permanent, the last as a ephemeral transformation triggered by rage.
This also corresponds to the fact that the first two are dead, animate dead, exhibiting little emotion themselves - they feed upon what they lack.
The last is alive, warmblooded - feeds and on emotion but also expels it in the form of rage.
All emotions are converted in it, through it, into Thymos.

All three are products of human urban environments.
They are psychological types functioning on an insidious level, as all appear human, in the natural sense, but are not.  

In a world populated by infected ones the non-infected one will be the one considered "ill".
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:56 pm

Alienated from nature/past, a mutation that is unfit, and cannot relate to the world outside human artifices, it thrives in manmade environments, seeking identity within its metaphors, seeking an appropriate name to describe itself, seeking a place to belong, to fit into.

Such a creature is committed to fashion, and style, because it has no other source for an identity.
It uses it to hide the scars, and the disharmony of its form and mind.
The pieces fit, but they do not fit symmetrically.
The asymmetry exposes its freakishness, its internal disharmony.
It prefers the dark because there shadows warp form, and can be used to create illusions.  

The Frankenstein.
Pieces, collected from the recycling bins of humanity, put together in strange combinations.
Mutations shaping a type that could only survive in urban environments, its techniques, and purchased technologies used to blend in where it feels it is exposed if one turns to gaze carefully.    

***
Such a by-product of Modernity is struggling to come to terms with its need to be seen, as it wishes to be seen, and to not be seen, as it is.
Pretense is its mask, as it buys time to weigh the costs and benefits.
With no internal harmony it lurches from option to option, collecting more pieces to amalgamate into its deformity.
It considers itself a work of art, in the making, but with no sense of self, and no past to connect with, to guide its stitching, it rummages through modern consumer imagery, sewing together a quilt which is not always aesthetically appealing.

The more talented piece-together a character with some cohesive style, and play out the role each alludes to.
The style dictated by pop-culture, or modern symbolism, it has collected through movies, musicals, pop-music videos, magazines.
The outcome is distinctly erotic.
A symptom of feminization to contrast with the more thymotic earlier representations of the type.  
It repeats the script, and when it moves a soundtrack accompanies its movements.

It is a caricature of caricatures, and in a feminizing nihilistic environment it recycles effete, Dandy-type, hermaphrodites, transvestites, homoerotic icons.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:11 pm

Image

Cyborg

Post-Modern equivalent of Frankenstein.
Parts combined over a frame, the spiritualists call it soul, or spirit; a mainframe, manufactured to a common design.
Additional parts are interchangeable and purchased at will, for a price.
[center]Image[/center]
The body ceases to have a history, it has a version, to be updated when new parts are invented.
The parts are not the Cyborg, like the organs are not the organism in our Nihilistic times.
The parts are add-on, over a basic model, to be renewed, every so often, as advancements in techniques/technologies arise.

Each part has a numerical designation, which identifies the Cyborg.
The parts only have purpose in relation to work; an object/objective shared
Choosing the parts the Cyborg expresses its subjective judgment in relation to the shared object/objective, and finds its place among other Cyborgs in relation to this labour.

The only distinguishing marker is the Cyborg's particular specialty, its expertise, in relation to this shared object/objective, this shared work. Each Cyborg acquires the part necessary to carry out it specialized function....no other distinction is permitted.
All Cyborgs can change vocation, specialize and alter their function.
All they need to change their identity is training/education, reprogramming.  

Image

The mainframe connects all Cyborgs to a shared pool of data, and parts.
All parts are purely cosmetic, and different only in relation to the task each one was designed to carry out.
All Cyborgs are manufactured using the same base model.  
All Cyborgs can upgrade at will, if they carry out their tasks efficiently, and are rewarded for their work.
The Cyborgs advancement can be gauged by what version its parts are.
Older, outdated parts, designate inefficiency.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:52 pm

Modern Heroes
Upgraded Idols
↓DC Universe ↓MARVEL Universe ↓Herculean Labours


The hero journey is inside of you; tear off the veils and open the mystery of yourself.”–Campbell, Joseph
Superheroes/Supervillains divided between different uni-verses are modern adaptations of ancient metaphors, i.e., primordial archetypes.
They have been updated to reflect the current world’s distinctly nihilistic ideological methodology, mirroring accumulating and compounding genealogical mutations – developing within sheltering manmade environments.
The aspect of “super” is an expression of these accumulating mutations, imbuing individuals with strange psychosomatic proclivities.

As with everything, nihilism inverts reality, through ideology. Modern Superheroes/Supervillains are presented as romantic figures – hyper-fit products of random mutations – when, in fact, sheltering unfit mutations produce hypo-fitness, becoming increasingly codependent – described by Edward Dutton as “spiteful mutants”.
Natural selection has been usurped by social selection, and the definition of “fitness” has been idealized; converted from a gene/meme synthesis to a meme/gene social ideal.
[ Vid: The Rise of Spiteful Mutants --- Edward, Dutton]

Superheroes/Supervillains
In current instalments of these alternate realities “Superheroes” are defenders of LGTBQ+ ideologies, i.e., Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual, Bisexual, Queer/Questioning, with the (+) representing whatever new paraphilia may arise.
Supervillains, on the other hand, are enemies of this status quo, each for their own reasons.
The comic book depictions display an appearance that externalizes esoteric psychology.

Modern children are educated with comic-book allegories, appropriate in an age of increasing literacy and diminishing comprehension.
MARVEL & DC are examples of how ancient mythologies, from around the world and across geographical and national boundaries, are reinterpreted and updated into forms representative of current social values.

Furthermore, we have not even to risk the adventure alone; for the heroes of all time have gone before us; the labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; and where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.”–Campbell, Joseph
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:44 pm

Seriously though, how are threads like this not just his own rendition of...

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles

That he is too naive and too weak -- and not just philosophically -- to recognize it isn't my fault.

It may well be embedded genetically in his very character. More or less completely beyond his control.

This biological imperative to demand that everyone, well, worship and adore him as Mr. Philosopher.

If only in this festive holiday season.

His last he suggests.

And again: the staggering irrelevance of KT and ILP given our utter lack of impact on the world around us.

It's got to be Fowles here, right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46376
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:01 pm

Stilll...no context.

Note to Others
Can anyone make sense of this?

Unless....you've guessed it - my adopted disclaimer - unless, I say...of course....
I am wrong.
And now my patronizing sarcastic insinuation will follow.
:wink:

Woman shit.

See how I escape being a fulminating fanatical objectivist?
That sentence. It shows how humble and willing to consider alternate perspectives...which, of course, I am not.
Since I piss on all of it.
I am a nihilist.
Nothing is my god.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: Under-World

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Dec 14, 2021 1:23 am

anne rice died
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32406
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Under-World

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:49 am

With Vampires, it became about emotional feeding. However, I believe they started as representing a financial feeding. The fear of losing life's blood, money.
:o I feel like The Scream painting :o !
Berkley Babes
Thinker
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: 7th Dimension

Re: Under-World

Postby Meno_ » Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:11 am

This whole thing has a familial resonance to it, but thank god night is falling and must soon get up.hate to be a party popper.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Under-World

Postby Lorikeet » Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:40 am

Berkley Babes wrote:With Vampires, it became about emotional feeding. However, I believe they started as representing a financial feeding. The fear of losing life's blood, money.
Yes...and they transformed from ugly, hooked nosed, monsters to fair skinned, erotic, sexy Europeans....crypsis.
The predator conceals itself by taking on the appearance of the host herd it feeds on.
Usually Vampires drain the host, not letting it die and become a vampire.
Allegory for those who worship death, the nil, the void.

Urban dwellers living in their own ghettos. Flourishing in darkness - occultism, obscurantism - avoiding the sunlight, i.e., exposure, clarity, honesty.

Money is Messiah.
After the Gold Standard abolished, it became an abstraction of abstractions - purified as a Messianic idea/ideal -...which is typical of all variants of nihilism, i.e., all urban monstrosities.
Messiah is of course the bait and the hook.
Money disconnected from the tangible becomes a tool of seduction, coercion and bribery.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm


Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users