Mysticism

[Avanti]

(thread requested by astarte)

the modern identity

is a composition of atomized particles

fused together by indoctrinating institutions

seeped with the Babylon-trademarked ideologies

the idolatry of acquisitions

to which both capitalism and socialism ascribe

most religions are also products

of indoctrination

which have been spooned down

since childhood

i do believe there are other dimensions

i am anti-religious

but i believe in other dimensions

aliens

ghosts

and universal oneness

that's not important

the important thing

is that you must create

a meaning to your life

secularism is giving you a meaning

but it is impossible

to join together that meaning

with what happens in your life

your failures

your pain

life turns grey and dormant

you are a cog

the meaning of your existence is to get stuff

to impress on a spouse

secular enlightenment

has reduced us down to animals

if your car wrecks

if your leg breaks

if you get beaten up

and only believe

those were co-incidences

you would soon turn depressed

if you believe

it was a way to test you

by powers outside your control

you can turn that

into a strength

and give your scars a mystical meaning

mysticism also makes life

far more interesting

every new dawn is an adventure

maybe some secret society is after you?

maybe you'll visit other dimensions in your dreams?

maybe the world's ending soon?

everything is possible

also

it destroys the control Babylon has over you

because Babylon wants you to focus

on wanting to judge yourself by your status

in society

you might be a poor loser

but in your dreams

you visit planets astronauts never could visit

in your interior world

you create and control new worlds

worlds of art

you can build your confidence

the only danger

is potential escapism

but mysticism can also be politically active

new age is a product of Babylon

techno-shamanism is Avanti

and you are Avanti

you can fly

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

that's not important

the important thing

is that you must create

a meaning to your life

secularism is giving you a meaning

but it is impossible

to join together that meaning

with what happens in your life

your failures

your pain

life turns grey and dormant

you are a cog

If it's impossible, then why can I do it?


the meaning of your existence is to get stuff

to impress on a spouse

Only if that's what one decides. Since life has no inherent meaning, one is free to decide what one's existence means.


secular enlightenment

has reduced us down to animals

We were and always have been animals. What's wrong with being an animal?


if your car wrecks

if your leg breaks

if you get beaten up

and only believe

those were co-incidences

you would soon turn depressed

How is it any better to believe that all the bad shit in life had to happen for whatever reason? Humans are not perfect, so accidents happen. Stairs can be slippery. People find all sorts of excuses to beat each other up. How does believing in some grander purpose behind such events help at all?

In fact, I would say that a purposeless universe is a pretty sweet place to live. One gets the freedom to choose one's own meaning and purpose in life, and the indifferent non-agency of the universe means that while it won't look after you, it also won't actively seek to hurt you. Thankfully the balance of evidence supports the view that in terms of universal purpose, humans are on their own.


if you believe

it was a way to test you

by powers outside your control

you can turn that

into a strength

and give your scars a mystical meaning

But what does that actually mean? Scars don't give you superpowers.


mysticism also makes life

far more interesting

every new dawn is an adventure

maybe some secret society is after you?

maybe you'll visit other dimensions in your dreams?

maybe the world's ending soon?

everything is possible

also

it destroys the control Babylon has over you

because Babylon wants you to focus

on wanting to judge yourself by your status

in society

you might be a poor loser

but in your dreams

you visit planets astronauts never could visit

in your interior world

you create and control new worlds

worlds of art

you can build your confidence

the only danger

is potential escapism

What's the difference between fantasy and mysticism?


but mysticism can also be politically active

new age is a product of Babylon

techno-shamanism is Avanti

and you are Avanti

you can fly

Not without technological assistance, I can't. No matter how hard I flap my arms.

You see, that's the thing about reality. It's that which, when you stop thinking about it, does not go away.

[Avanti]

the border between a human mind

and a plant

is illusory

and with flying

i mean mind-flying

you must interpret me

allegorical

and reality is just one shade of existence

the most interesting things

happen outside of reality

maybe there's a universe

where donald duck actually exists?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the border between a human mind

and a plant

is illusory

How? They behave like completely different and discrete objects.


and with flying

i mean mind-flying

you must interpret me

allegorical

Flying allegorically I can do any time, that's what dreams and drugs and games are good for. Actual personal flight would be much more useful, it would mean I could spend less money on travel.


and reality is just one shade of existence

the most interesting things

happen outside of reality

maybe there's a universe

where donald duck actually exists?

Maybe there is, but how that relevant to events in this universe?

[Avanti]

my beliefs

is that all existence

in the beginning was oneness

and still is

that is why

we have sex with one another

but that's just my beliefs

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

my beliefs

is that all existence

in the beginning was oneness

and still is

that is why

we have sex with one another

but that's just my beliefs

Beliefs by themselves are insufficient. I could believe in a secret underground communist Eutopia on Mars, but if I wanted anyone else to take my beliefs seriously I would have to provide evidence, or otherwise trick them into believing that sufficient evidence exists (like starting a cult).

For example, the evidence says that humans have sex because their ancestors because that's the best way of combining genetic material that arose out of the circumstances of the time thanks to natural selection.

[Avanti]

Beliefs by themselves are insufficient. I could believe in a secret underground communist Eutopia on Mars, but if I wanted anyone else to take my beliefs seriously I would have to provide evidence, or otherwise trick them into believing that sufficient evidence exists (like starting a cult).

For example, the evidence says that humans have sex because their ancestors because that's the best way of combining genetic material that arose out of the circumstances of the time thanks to natural selection.

the idea

of other-dimensional

astral societies

is to express

some kind of ideal

in an esoterical way

you need to move into mythos

into the subconscious

you try to understand too much with your brain

and no

humans have sex because

it is fucking amazing

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the idea

of other-dimensional

astral societies

is to express

some kind of ideal

in an esoterical way

you need to move into mythos

into the subconscious

But if our ideals are not concomitant with reality, which to all indications has an existence independent of human minds, then we risk being lead down the primrose path of futility. That's why scientific methodology and historical materialism are important tools in discerning the nature of reality, because when properly used they serve to find solutions that work and discard those that don't.


you try to understand too much with your brain

It's the best tool for the job, actually.


and no

humans have sex because

it is fucking amazing

But why is it so amazing? I hardly think it would have been a successful evolutionary development if it wasn't.

[Avanti]

and who is following dialectal materialism?

who ever followed it?

the actual leninists

did never fap on the thought of dialectal materialism

they either dreamt of secular armageddon

or the communist paradise

"when everybody would be like plato, newton and aristotle"

according to trotsky

or

they dreamt of making themselves absolute rulers

and punish the nobility and the capitalists

who were higher in status than university students

and the masses

followed it because it had an amazing propaganda machine

explaining how the heavens were constructed

or they dreamt of having it better materially

but nobody follows academic theories

nobody

they are sterile

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You appear to be confusing historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) with dialectical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism), which I don't ascribe to. My understanding of historical materialism is as a provisional description of human societies, rather than a cast-iron law of reality.

[Avanti]

you see

my question stands

who is following historical materialism?

at least dialectical materialism

is appealling

to people who want to scream "akhbar!"

and devote themselves

to one unchanging path

are you ready to die

for historical materialism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How would dying help? Then I really would be useless. Except perhaps if there was a pressing need for fertiliser.

[Avanti]

How would dying help? Then I really would be useless. Except perhaps if there was a pressing need for fertiliser.

revolutionaries

must be prepared

to pay the ultimate prize

the struggle

demands a blood sacrifice

otherwise

it isn't a struggle

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's a decision to be made closer to the appropriate time, don't you think? I'm not joining a militia.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

you see

my question stands

who is following historical materialism?

at least dialectical materialism

is appealling

to people who want to scream "akhbar!"

and devote themselves

to one unchanging path

are you ready to die

for historical materialism?

I understand what you're saying but I think there is much misunderstanding of historical and dialectical materialism. Historical materialism is simply a way of understanding historical change as being primarily the product of material conditions and not being primarily led by "great ideas" or a "great man". Of course philosophy, ideas, and religions can have a huge impact but only if the material conditions are ready for them.

Napoleon had a huge impact but if it wasn't for the French Revolution he probably would have remained an obscure Corsican officer. "Men make their history, but not under conditions of their choosing" as Uncle Karl said.

Also Marx was a materialism but his materialism was radically different from earlier materialisms. Marx's materialism was much different from the 17th/18th century French and Scottish materialists. It emphasized human agency and humanity in a "creative, sensuous" relationship with the world.

There are those who see Marx and Hegel in the tradition of the 17th century Hermetiicists, Blake, and the Romantics. Instead of the "God" of the alchemists and kabbalists, this tradition substituted human nature.

http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-human-self-creation-cyril-smith

The Marxist writer/critic Norman O Brown , taking a cue from Henri Corbin, talked about the "Imaginal Realm" of the Sufis.

Marxism has been distorted and we are often presented with a one dimensional reductionist caricature.The tradition isn't as sterile as you may think.

As far as "dying for historical materialism", there's a great Trotsky quote, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". I sure don't want to for or from capitalism. HM to me is a tool I can use to help prevent this.

[Avanti]

misunderstanding yes

but that's not important

even if it explains what happens

it isn't something

that's ever going to motivate anyone

nobody died for historical materialism

or dialectical materialism

to each their own

but most people

are not damaged enough

to understand science

or be motivated by it

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You misunderstand the purpose of historical materialism. It's function is to help better understand the world with regards to how human history and societies develop. It serves as an adjunct to the pre-existing motivation of wanting a better society.

[Avanti]

You misunderstand the purpose of historical materialism. It's function is to help better understand the world with regards to how human history and societies develop. It serves as an adjunct to the pre-existing motivation of wanting a better society.

that purpose

is not of any interest

the only

which is of interest

is how to

stimulate

the arousal

of the masses

rising up

the left succeeds

at historical materialism

but historical materialism

fails

to stir up the masses

and make them confident

in a complete victory

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As Noxion said, the purpose of HM is the understanding of historical and how society functions. To me, the self understanding of human society should be of paramount interest.

As far as arousing the mases, tghis starts to sound like George Sorel and his "myth of the general strike". This came out of a form of syndicalism and (I believe) reached a dead end.

What do you want to arouse the masses to do? The Nuremburg rallies certainly aroused the masses.To help lead workers in a progressive direction one needs an understanding of historical dynamics.This isn't sterile Aristotlean rationalism but understanding history in order to change it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you don't have a good idea of how societies develop, how can you expect to change your own for the better? Cults and fascist movements may be good at motivating their members, but in terms of rebuilding society in a better shape their track record is extremely lacking.

We could have all the motivation in the world, but we would find it impossible to settle on other planets if we were to completely ignore what physics has to say about space travel. Societies are as much a part of physical existence as other planets, and it would be similarly remiss of us to pass by any attempt at uncovering the working principles of how they change and develop.

[l'Enfermé]

i am Avanti

and i can fly

[Avanti]

As Noxion said, the purpose of HM is the understanding of historical and how society functions. To me, the self understanding of human society should be of paramount interest.

As far as arousing the mases, tghis starts to sound like George Sorel and his "myth of the general strike". This came out of a form of syndicalism and (I believe) reached a dead end.

What do you want to arouse the masses to do? The Nuremburg rallies certainly aroused the masses.To help lead workers in a progressive direction one needs an understanding of historical dynamics.This isn't sterile Aristotlean rationalism but understanding history in order to change it.

it is not useless

but it is not useful

in winning any support

from the masses

look at my most recent thread

in the theory forum

[black magick hustla]

ur a nutcase

[Rafiq]

misunderstanding yes

but that's not important

even if it explains what happens

it isn't something

that's ever going to motivate anyone

nobody died for historical materialism

or dialectical materialism

to each their own

but most people

are not damaged enough

to understand science

or be motivated by it

HM isn't an ideology, it is not communist or revolutionary in nature, it is an objectively scientific means of analyzing human social relations and movement.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Yuppie Grinder]

Avanti, sorry buddy, but your method of analysis, making shit up that sounds cool, can be used against progressive causes very easily. Scientologists, Mormons, National-Anarchists, all removed from reality weirdos who just made shit up as they went along.
Historical Materialism is pretty neato burrito imho.

[Avanti]

Avanti, sorry buddy, but your method of analysis, making shit up that sounds cool, can be used against progressive causes very easily. Scientologists, Mormons, National-Anarchists, all removed from reality weirdos who just made shit up as they went along.
Historical Materialism is pretty neato burrito imho.

guns can be used

as a weapon

against progressive causes too

does that mean

that guns

and explosives

should never be used?

[Grenzer]

You appear to be confusing historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) with dialectical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism), which I don't ascribe to. My understanding of historical materialism is as a provisional description of human societies, rather than a cast-iron law of reality.

Well actually historical materialism is not a system that stands on its own, but the application of dialectical materialism to history. It mainly seems to be bourgeois historians who are unable to properly understand the subject that come to this conclusion.. such is the way of wikipedia I guess.

[Astarte]

Well actually historical materialism is not a system that stands on its own, but the application of dialectical materialism to history. It mainly seems to be bourgeois historians who are unable to properly understand the subject that come to this conclusion.. such is the way of wikipedia I guess.

*cough*Critical*cough*Theory ... yeah, its a major branch of thought that developed in the bourgeois West from the Frankfurt school ... The idea that bourgeois historians themselves have not co-opted Marxian methods of sociological analysis and historiography is kind of, well, untrue (Christopher Hitchens) - believe it or not, it is possible for the bourgeoisie and their academia to understand society from a class perspective while at the same time seeking to perpetuate the status quo and reaction rather than revolution ... hence a major reason why Marcuse came to such grim conclusions in his book "One Dimensional Man".

All modern Western universities, if their History/Social Sciences departments are academically respected on any level will have professors that teach from a Marxian, "Post-Modern", or Liberal historiography... this has been the case even in the Bourgeois West since at least the mid 1950s...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well actually historical materialism is not a system that stands on its own, but the application of dialectical materialism to history. It mainly seems to be bourgeois historians who are unable to properly understand the subject that come to this conclusion.. such is the way of wikipedia I guess.

There's nothing dialectical about historical materialism. If anything it fits in more with a class-based framework. It's a concept that can be expressed in entirely non-dialectical terms, and so much the better for that.

The overweening arrogance of dialecticians is amazing. Such is the flexibility of dialectical language, it can be used by dialecticians to claim credit for anything, or in extreme cases, used in an attempt to "explain" the whole of existence (see: Dialectics of Nature)

Not to mention it's derivation from the reactionary idealism of Hegel.

[Avanti]

i believe in dialectics

i am a believer

reality

arises from

self-contradictions

without self-contradictions

no existence

1 = 0 = infinity

explains the universe

the day

that the self-contradictions cease

the entire universe will implode

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If 1 = 0, then all numbers are equal to each other and mathematics shouldn't work.

Yet it manifestly does. So obviously 1 =/= 0.

So therefore you are wrong.

[Avanti]

If 1 = 0, then all numbers are equal to each other and mathematics shouldn't work.

Yet it manifestly does. So obviously 1 =/= 0.

So therefore you are wrong.

i am not talking about mathematics

i am talking about

the creation of the universe

before the universe

there were no self-contradictions

there was 1 = 0

when the universe formed

1 = infinity

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Before the universe" is a meaningless phrase. Like "north of the North Pole".

[Avanti]

"Before the universe" is a meaningless phrase. Like "north of the North Pole".

exactly

therefore

dialectics

BOOM!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

More like "thud". What you posted is what is called in logical terms is called a non-sequiter; it does not follow from what you have previously said.

Seriously, if you want people to take you seriously, rather than laugh at you, you're going to need to make some kind of sense.

[Avanti]

logics are overrated

anti-logics are funnier