DE:
Yes, but why? Because people refuse to learn. This only supports, what I think your point is (I could be mistaken, please correct me if I am), that something radical must be done.
Yes, because people refuse to learn. In this very thread, I was speaking of the value of
education - and no one seemed to pay much attention to how valuable education is. Even education, today, is extremely guided by the herd-class...meaning, in short, that it is
uneducational, or at least, educates only what the herd affirms, in the manner which they affirm as well. But we do have to wonder: can everyone be educated? - from
my experience, it seems to me that the truly free thinkers are those who did
not need education to guide them, that they were educated almost by nature, that they were
born filled with too many ideas, too much knowledge, too much curiosity. Indeed, this supposes a radical change...but what that change
is -
that remains to be thought about and decided. Is it a change in the way people are educated? I do not believe so - it takes a change in a more grandiose fashion, a fashion that not only touches education, but every sect of society - entertainment, politics, religion, social life, and every aspect of existence. What is this change? Whatever it is, it
must be an upheaval - it has to be something that the majority
does not want. They will call it "evil," but they call anything that does not parallel to their desires "evil," so we must not worry about what they think very much: "good and evil" are
still to be decided by the new values, and thus all archaic beliefs concerning morality may be ignored for the purposes of this change.
DE:
...you have to realize that apathy and entropy are also not going to resolve anything.
So let us ask this: to whom must we pay sympathy and consideration? - I would agree with you here, but...the majority does not want to lose control: it has control over all values, it has power, and it has the will to happiness. Who of them dares risk their present state of existence and happiness? They want to hold on to whatever liberties they believe they have, to whatever constitutions, morals, and culture - their greatest aim is
happiness, not just so, but
happiness at any cost; they have come to value their lives so great, that
they are willing to show apathy and entropy towards anyone who dares thwarts their leaps to infinity. It is
they who have shown the first apathy and lack of consideration! - must we not pay them back? Rather, it is the only mean in which we can pay them back, by apathy and entropy. They are the first people who would become apathetic toward us when they feel threatened. Just look at their wars and constant rabble - they do not know how to get a long with each other, even though they are the same species, or rather, the same sub-species.
"But we are better people," someone might say. Yes, we might be...but in every dawn of change there is always apathy and disorder; every change is
disorder, a going away from the norm, a creation of new values. So let this one great change also be the great apathy.
DE:
But, to do anything exceptionally radical, what would the consequences be? Would a specific form of "life" be imposed onto everyone?
No
doing must be done without
knowing the consequence, or at least, having a great estimation. We cannot begin to impose blindly lest we impose something on a spirit greater than
us - the form of life must be so that the
great is allowed to be great, and the
ungreat is
not allowed to be great or to be able to equalize itself with anything and anyone greater than itself. Can greatness be mistaken?
Yes. Amongst the majority of people, greatness is always mistaken for
ungreatness - amongst them, the world is upturned.
But here is where we stand before the greatest question mark:
The change
we might inflict is only temporary, no matter how great it is. Social values and the social structure necessarily changes with time due to new inventions, scientific development, and technology (Here I insert the consideration to slow down and then bring to halt all science). Greater than that is...we all die. Supposing that I was a leader and I impose a change because I
know, therefore appreciate, the greatness of change. After my death, in due time, all that I would have stabilized would slowly shift and melt, slowly reform into something not
of me, into something of someone's desire - my concepts would be altered, eventually, completely changed into something new, something unstable. And it cannot be to my surprise that the axis of values will slowly begin to tilt, again, towards the majority. It is only out of weakness that we let the majority decide what is best, it is only out of lacking
greatness that we let them,
the ungreat, voice their shallow opinions as "facts" - and when a greatness dies, it is quite difficult to replace him or her quickly, if at all - and therefore,
new greatness must grow, new greatness must become known, must fly, and tilt the axis back to where it belongs. And this should be the history of mankind: the constant victory of humanity over everything subhuman, everything that is lacking, that is dispirited. Insofar, our history is merely a war game between the subhuman type, a will to power, a wanting of power and happiness, a principles of pleasure. When will come the first man who writes the new history, the
human history!
DE:
What if they reject it? Would they be given that choice to reject?
The real question is:
should they be given the choice to reject, and if so, on what basis? We have already discussed how the majority, the subhuman, aims towards happiness and has as its morality a principle of pleasure, which it calls "good and evil" - if this is one's greatest preoccupation, and if one's greatest thought is of this sort, should he be given consideration? Such people are dangerous: they lack reason, and therefore, they are willing to reach their
own happiness
at any cost, to gratify their "morality" at any cost too - these animals are willing to go beyond all limits to harness what pleases them. They have no thought or care for the world: what they care about is
themselves, but of course, they conceal this behind divine ideas as "God," "faith," "morality," and a plentitude of very illusive terms that they just might begin to fool us into believing that they are righteous people. But they are not! It is the principle of pleasure that guides them, and nothing else. Should these blind clowns be given a choice to reject that which is
greater than them? I am inclined to say No.
DE:
Should that stop me from asking for the people on both sides to go home and stop killing? It doesn't solve the larger problem, no. But I know for a fact I don't have the perfect, right, or even acceptable answer to the larger problem... yet.
Yes, it does not solve the human tragedy, but with all honesty, I have tried playing the game of solving these little problems - it is a waste of time for me. At the end, it is a
contribution to the problem: the problem seems to me is that you either solve it using all the pieces, or ignore it completely. If a wise man is able to put a single piece, to solve a single ridde, apart from the whole, he has done not much: this piece, by itself, will fall with time, and the riddle will be sung again by unknowing, ungreat people - it is they who will undo this man's work. Solve the riddle as it appears or leave it untouched - this is my principle. As I have said, world peace
is a problem yet to come. I am
against world peace for reasons I have already stated. That you want to tell both sides to go home and stop their killing - this is a good deed done for the present, it might even be done because it isimply displeases your morality to see people die. I have spoken to many "antiwar" protestants - it is not war and killing that they are really protesting, it is their feelings that they want to silence, their anger, their rage towards something
wrong -
to make use of that energy is what makes greatness, and to protest against it is to protest against one's self as well. What are the reasons to protest against killing? That killing is
wrong? According to who or what is killing "wrong"?
...killing, perhaps, is wrong when it harms that which is greater than one's self. If you read this thread from the beginning, you can see that I have brought the issue of
culture way in the beginning: as I deem the Iraqi culture to be much more aware of
life than the American one, and I have stated few reasons for that belief as well.
...killing by itself - it is not a crime unless you can tell me that "it is a crime in accordance to
this or that principle" - is it in a religious principle, political, personal? I have done away with such "principles," as they are merely
principles of pleasure. Killing is not wrong unless it destroys a greater spirit. Killing is, honestly, not wrong when it is greatness versus the ungreat. We still can ask, “what is greatness…in accordance to who or what is a man ‘great’?” – I have already given a brief definition of greatness when I defined
subhumanity versus
humanity few posts up. Yes, all this wondering is very well entangled, that you will have to read all the thread, perhaps, to begin to see the whole picture.
DE:
I think this sums up your view point excellently and anyone that doesn't understand DÛke should pay attention to this.
DE, let me surprise you: I have been told that I need to learn proper English, that I need to actually start making sense when I write. I think some people cannot even read me. <evil laughter> It seems to me that the style in which I write is very appropriate after all, as it can only be read well by select few – which is exactly what I want. I should be the last man to want to be read by the majority.
DE:
I think at this point, this thread has deviated from its origins in a long, long way and a discussion of this sort is best left to a second thread or private discussion amongst ourselves.
Why don’t you simply split the thread? Find a good split-point where the thread really seems to deviate, and create a new one. You
are a moderator.
DE:
Only, a "once point B is reached, all will be well." (Yes, that's a VERY broad summation, and I don't mean it to be insulting.) Yes, I realize a free thinker has to come to their own conclusions themselves. But you also speak of "the war between mankind and these other man-animals". As a free-thinker, you and I both must envision multiple roads to your "point B" or you and I both again are falling to your own logic and proving we are not free-thinkers or "human".
Of course I did not provide a lay out. I hope you do not expect me to have all answers yet, and honestly, I have more questions than answers – in fact, I have no answers to any distinct problem. I see why you think that we might try to find a new point of origin for point B – but
I have my point A: I call it the
Evil onto Light, or the inversion of all values. This is not
an answer, you see, but a proposition: that all values that exist today, no matter what history they might have had or what intentions, have grown to be the principles of pleasure and the blind seeking of happiness –
all values, whether political, moral, social, even environmental laws. There is no real principle behind it all – the evil onto light serves as the starting point of new principles, principles that will
contradict the underlying, secret pleasure principle that exists today; it will be called “evil,” but as
we know it, it is only the evil against, or,
onto the false “light” of these people, and towards a greater light, onto the Light. What precisely that means still needs to be brought into clearer definition. And this is where I get to reply to your suggestion: ...
DE:
DÛke, why aren't you publishing books?!
Most people in my life, sadly including my own parents and relatives, have discouraged me to a great extent where they have made me doubt even myself. Being twenty, attending full time university, and being surrounded by dispiriting people does not help me. Nevertheless, as much of an isolating task it has become, I
have already begun writing my first book months ago: "
Dusks of Spirit: Pathologies and 'Good Feelings'." and it is half-completed. It is pretty much the same stuff I speak here, with a more researched fashion and more philosophical - but the tone and the terminology is written with the same unrestrained, untamed style; it will put off some people, but that is exactly my intention - I only want strong-hearted and willing spirits to approach me; this will be my personal overcoming and shattering everything the world holds most dear. My
personal book, which I have also started, "
The Evil onto Light: The Inversion of All Values," will take all the broken clay after the masscare of Dusks of Spirit, melt it, and then shape it again into something new, something of
abuse, something contrary to all ethics hitherto - my family's problem is with this book: it goes against everything, even their beliefs (my dad went as far as saying that it will finally imprison me). And then I have "
To Go Beyond," "
The Libertine" and "
O My Human!" forming in my head.
I should complete Dusks of Spirit by the end of this summer.
And by the way, I recieved your email - I spent all my time on the computer writing this. Friends is about to start, and I just love that show.
