>>154
Both of them are very Platonic thinkers. Yes, Platonic. So some dimwits might say that no Nietzsche hated Plato, and Kierkegaard was referring to Socrates rather than Plato, but they're dimwits, as simple as that. To really know Nietzsche and Kierkegaard as philosophers, reading a summary, or a introduction to etc. is of no help, you really need to read their works and avoid stupid cliches. The same is true of Plato. These philosophers are edifying, dynamic, they're in their core not philosophers of doctrines. A same essence may have many different manifestations depending on the cultural milieu, a true Platonist, when he's living in 19th century, is unlikely to be a superficial Platonist.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard when seen in the lense of history are really the successors of Tertullian, Augustine, Ockham, Martin Luther, etc. at least superficially - but not that superficially. And actually, for me, it seems plain that Nietzsche in his personality and his essence was a much more Christian person than Kierkegaard. It is conceivable that Kierkegaard actually had no religion, but Nietzsche, he might have not believed in a God, but he's an extreme type of religious person who just cannot breathe without thinking religiously. Kierkegaard was cerebral, complex, and quick-minded, Nietzsche was emotional, feeling-oriented and deep - in direct opposition to dimwits' perception of them.
Anyway, it's easy to perceive - for those who can perceive - that these two philosophers are very different, but it's quite hard to really accurately chart their position in history. But as far as I can see to sense more concrete content in their writings a deep understanding of Christianity and Western Civilization - doctrinal, intellectual, historical, etc. etc. - is essential. And Christianity is a very misunderstood and distorted religion, both by its believers and its critics - it's extremely annoying when I say to someone that to understand X you need to understand Christianity then this person think that's because I'm a Christian and I'm selling the religion but no I care not actually since a sold religion with no genuine understanding is of no value whatsoever; Wittgenstein wanted to believe but he couldn't, that's a thing that really needs to be pondered upon.
I too wasn't interested in religion at all. I entered the realm of religion only after I've gone through several voPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>156
And maybe I need to clarify something. I can understand that there can be a revulsion towards history since historico-social perspective always seems to diminish the individualities of those individuals, and that by doing so you always seem to be tagging the philosophers. I wasn't interested in history at all, either, and dimwits are genuinely engaging in the act of tagging philosophers with labels. But my points are, first, if this "thisness" can really be cancelled by a mere change of perspective then it worths nothing, and second, if not viewed under the lens of history some crucial points are invisible, and third, tagging is merely a convenient device, the precise meaning of the labels that are attached to someone should really be read in context. In the cultural milieu of early 20th century Nietzsche and Rilke really didn't look that different, and it is this Nietzsche that is well-known and it is this Nietzsche that exerted influence upon the culture of the 20th century. It is unfortunate, but it is true that before 60s people only had a distorted image of Nietzsche, and even if it was not distorted his writings were dangerous in that dimwits can read whatever they wish from them; it is better to just reject "his" "thoughts", than trying to combat dimwits.
There really are important and "eternal" stuff that can only be seen through the lens of history and society. I'm always frustrated when someone just brutally attacks a position, without really comprehending the context.
For example, normies' understanding of inquisition is based simply on a simple rejection of authority and dimwitted celebration of whatever liberty, but things are always much more subtle, i.e.:
>When the old-fashioned guardians of orthodoxy burned a heretic, they knew what they were doing and why. They realized that the spirit is explosive and treated it far more realistically from their point of view than the pseudo-liberal babblers and advocates of tolerance in the nineteenth century. We cannot condemn the inquisitors' concern about the right spirit and the consequences of movements without that spirit but only the means and methods which they applied to oppose them.
This is not a mere "balanced" judgement, but a sober one. It is not out of the fear of losing stability that one wants to be soberPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>157
>it is true that before 60s people only had a distorted image of Nietzsche
Btw I wonder how this happened? I don't read much sources related to Nietzsche's acception history.

>>169
You don't need to read much sources. I've never read and I doubt whether there is any. It is never the case that to know about something you need to read something since this something that you read is another work written by a human being, and the narrative is brewed by this person, and the "source" itself is written. It surprises me when people claim that they don't know about this sort of topics simply because they didn't read.
You just need to know how the majority of influential thinkers thought about Nietzsche. And how Nazi utilized his philosophy. And from the shape of the general reception of Nietzsche you just know it. For example, you just need to read, say, Heidegger, and the debates between the so-called existential philosophers regarding the position of Nietzsche. Maybe also introductions in some good editions of Nietzsche's works.
But nevertheless,
>While researching materials for the Italian translation of Nietzsche's complete works in the 1960s, the philologists Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari decided to go to the Archives in Leipzig to work with the original documents. From their work emerged the first complete and chronological edition of Nietzsche's writings, including the posthumous fragments from which Förster-Nietzsche had assembled The Will To Power. The complete works comprise 5,000 pages, compared to the 3,500 pages of the Großoktavausgabe. In 1964, during the International Colloquium on Nietzsche in Paris, Colli and Montinari met Karl Löwith, who would put them in contact with Heinz Wenzel, editor for Walter de Gruyter's publishing house. Heinz Wenzel would buy the rights of the complete works of Colli and Montinari (33 volumes in German) after the French Gallimard edition and the Italian Adelphi editions.
>Before Colli and Montinari's philological work, the previous editions led readers to believe that Nietzsche had organized all his work toward a final structured opus called The Will to Power. In fact, if Nietzsche did consider producing such a book, he had abandoned such plans in the months before his collapse. The title of The Will to Power, which appears for the first time at the end of the summer of 1885, was replaced by another plan at the end of August 1888. This new plan was titled "Attempt at a revaluation of all values" [Versuch einer Umwerthung aller Werthe]Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>170
When I read literally anything there are always constant debates and inferences taking place in my mind: What's the authors position, and does what he claim make sense? What if I am, say, Nietzsche, what will be the opinion of Nietzsche towards the authors position? In what sense does the two thinkers diverge, and what makes them diverge, etc. etc.
It is fully automatic and it simply makes tons of hypotheses which I'll forget about and confirm/reject months or years later when I encounter a certain passage in a wholly different book. It is very hard - or very tedious - for me to assemble those facts that leads to the conclusion that I stated, but in general I think my observations are pretty trivial and only when an observation is trivial I'll say it out without further explanations.

>但是当我每次都发现他们见到或听到不熟悉的东西而表现出的那种羊群特有的恐惧不安时
希望这里不被什么人误解。这不意味着我在谈话时总是把“我自己的特点”放在中心，也不意味着谈话时我要一直说自己熟悉的事，这对某些人来说是什么egocentric，，这是458最容易被人误解的地方，有脑子的人都知道这种"egocentric"有多荒唐，我在别人那里没有任何野心。事实就是你跟他们永远说不到一块去（即使你们在聊的真的是一些日常话题），人们感受不到我这种极为敏感的对任何奴隶元素的侦查能力有多强。
而在与任何我认定为朋友的人那里，我压抑了所有这样的能力所带来的后果，因为他太不"友好"了。这也意味着，只有在面临“朋友”的情况，我才有可能作出一点点妥协（也就是考虑对方的感受），我不想我的脆弱朋友们因为我的话而痛苦，不过也许他们之中很多人洞悉了这一点，他们洞悉了我没说出的很多话，他们很多人很机灵，即使，也许他们中很多人会永远走在平凡的道路上。
对他们来说，我甚至是“高贵”的，我太冤枉了，我只感觉我被侮辱了。

给我一种感觉，很多人在做这样的事：在这个世界上谋求一个高尚的位置，同时在所有方面自己其实是清醒无比的，而这证明了某种能力。哦，我理解他们，但我真的，我指的是仅仅对于我自己，我不需要什么位置，而这跟什么能力也毫无关系。越远离这个世界，我才能跟这个世界更加和睦，我才能爱，这几乎就是自然主义的。
虽然我不是隐居者（我一般生活在城市中心），但是我想未来我必须得住在Apls附近的。

关于在网络上表达我思考过很久，结论是我在跟这个世界，或者秘密世界（类似于秘密德国）明明是在进行亲密交流的，这是相当积极的，我打心底觉得自己从未退出过世界，而且几乎是必须要留下影响的。
我只是真的把大部分人排除了。

>>147
Literally this.

I've made a whole playlist for electronic music like this.

>>90
This was a "forever remembered" release and Hall of mirrors was an absolute rare treasure.
You have faith in >human again.
You take the whole warmthy of the sun.
Some the Autechre tracks were the Dionysus version of B12.

>>91
They'll take over the Internet, and they keep the most central part of it, un-die. They will live with all the glory-filled graves and monuments.

No connection to ae but this piece is Good.
Negativland.
- Biophon Records, BIO29.7

>>116
Thank you! I'll add a TOC to this then. Sioyek is really unstable, and recently it's cpu usage become wild. But actually they have a toggle_two_page_mode now on dev branch (conflicting with presentation mode though).
The reason I'm not very comfy with Zathura is their selection-clipboard is really hard to use. any ideas on tinkering this?

>>125
>selection-clipboard
Maybe just try it again? There was an update recently that changed the behavior.

>>116
>>125
Splited pdf with TOC.

stunning thoughts, allow me to make no more replies, maybe several years later I will be back and be able to continue this topic…

LMAO.

When the sun is surrounded by clouds, its opposites, such as full moon behind snowy mountains.

It's a fact that I don't like gazing at the moon at all, and when I'm in a quiet summer night even if I'm outdoors I have to wait for the sun or I'll gradually get anxious. At night, especially in the summer, the calls of small animals or insects become more energetic. But everything else besides that - the sea, the moon, the moist air - is much harder to get through on the southeast coast. And the daytime over there is really not suitable for human living.
Nights in the north places or colder regions are better, where the moon should acting more like the sun. So cold nights are definitely the right time to do comtemplation activities, whereas hot days only make me see death. The seasons and temperatures really affect my life.
I really hate the heat of the climate, especially when I feel as if my life has been relegated to that of a tropical insect's.

I think I'll watch it later.

>>100
Thank you. The documentary is called The Alpinist (2021). TBH, his behaviour in the documentary alone could show his extraordinary life. His approach to climbing makes one really want to worship and the closest I know to a state of philosophical contemplation (free solo) among others, far from the utilitarian nature of technical climbs that are just about ascending.
He was well known even before the documentary was made.

After seeing this before bed, I had a seemingly beautiful dream I'd been always waiting for.

The Unbroken Promise (PRO00041, licensed from Italy’s HIC SUNT LEONES)

1. The Throne Of Drones (Asphodel0952)
2. Swarm Of Drones (Asphodel0953)
3. The Sombient Trilogy (Asphodel0966)
One of the most striking CD sets of US label Asphodel (0966 was a 3CD Box), which I have never listened to all of them and should never. This kind of huge compilation is overwhelming for me. Many tracks focus too much on the noise-"ritual" (a.k.a immersion) aspect and not so much on the electronic (drum beats and manipulation of components of sound). One can imagine the guy who did the soundtrack for Dune1,2 would like some of these tracks.
Asphodel is an ambitious avant-garde label that has released more than one Xenakis so it caught my attention. I owned the Iannis Xenakis – Kraanerg (Asphodel0975). The booklet was so simply designed so that it looked like a scrap of paper with only typography shown.
There was some very mediocre ("elaborate") french electronic music like Francis Dhomont also had an release on this label. Well.

- Some stories could be found at: Incredibly Strange Music: The Untold Story of Asphodel Records
- Historical archive of old site: https://web.archive.org/web/20170222225812/http://asphodel.com/

So this is not really Aube-like but it worth a mention.

Let's be thankful to Aube that he has ever built a label like this in this world.
- MSBR(Tano Kōji), K2, Maurizio Bianchi, Incapacitants, Masonna etc.
- Hyware, Mariann Käfer, Smegma etc.
- Diesel Guitar (Youki Noseyama) etc.

- G.R.O.S.S. - discogs page
- G.R.O.S.S. label overview: https://special-interests.net/forum/index.php?topic=31.0

>>95
The expression is less clear and more cryptic, obscure, i.e. less electronic and more noise (uncontrolled hand-held instruments, guitar). Closer to a continuation of the psychedelic noise music of the Japanese underground, very psych and not really religious.
There is a definite concern for the richness of sound and great care for the spatiality.

The file attached is not the remastered version from Art-into-life (AIL021), but from his own label Good Microphone.

Diesel Guitar's 90s works:
- Maria (1995)
- Medium of Lights (1996)
- Assimilation (1999)

>>96
Maria (A. Expansion And Contraction ∞, B. Prayer And Assimilation) was once released by G.R.O.S.S (GRE209):

>>77
But here, one word of caution. I'm following literally no one. I'm not really a Schellingian or Jungian or Nietzschean. If I need to acknowledge that I'm following someone, I'm following the philosophy of Dun Scotus, which is so badly misunderstood. Jung, Schelling, etc., even Frege, they're just devices. And Scotus' philosophy is all about individuality, about incarnation, and, literally, by means of being individual oneself, individuate the whole pre-individualized (or maybe, pre-created) creation. My interpretation of all these philosophers should be highly personal and biased. Or maybe, I don't interpret, I cannot accept other people's thought without heavily modifying them. So caution.

>>74
Your replies mean so much to me, thanks again for your keen revelation of your own philosophy, and the passion. It should be my own duty to know this kind of Christian cosmology.
>individual human beings, in so far as they are autonomous beings endowed with free will, are all microcosmos-es, so they also need to incarnate self.
>Every meaningful, genuine process, that can be called a process, in that it creates something genuinely new in Time, is an instance of incarnation. And it's going to be followed by a death and a resurrection, so that what is created is divinized and beomces eternal.
This realization here is true for me, in the sense that I feel that many artists, poets or musicians, have exactly these processes going on in their real lives, e.g. Hoelderlin. This is the only way towards a kind of individualisation.
Paganism may have its own problems, they're not revolutionary enough to head to a genuine philosophy. I'm literally not a pagan, but a few of my friends are. Anyway, hope to see more critiques on Paganism. For poetry, though, myth/paganism has always been seen as a kind of object from which poetry is constantly sourced.
>Romantics' obsession with Dionysus is literally a hermenuetic technique that they needed to utilize since Christianity at that time was so corrupt
Yes. I recently read a book by Antoine Berman, which is on the culture and translation of the Romantic period. As for a more historically oriented book, I've always read EG Chapter 20-21, which you recommend, as a good reference, very informative. As far as I could tell, the God of the Romantics is often more poetic and less revolutionary (that kind of revolutionary is not entirely absent though), which has led to some people to apparently misunderstand a truer Christianity, as you described. Apart from Hoerdelin, other Romantic poets in general were much better at practising certain spiritual acts in a plain everyday sense, such as theorizing about their translation activities, as well as some sort of correspondence between several Romantists, or friends, giving a deep meaning to fragmentary writings and trying to develop this into a personal stylistic benchmark. I can feel something like the surrealist movement or that for futurist, that is, some kind of art movement. The George cPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>78
Absolutely. This is exactly what a philosopher or metaphysician should be. The so-called personal and biased here, is more valuable and even more precise than most of the other visible philosophies, at least for me.

>>79
I think the problem with paganism is that it's not true at all. Myths are real. The Myth is real, more real than concrete reality, just like how mathematics is in a sense more real than concrete reality. And paganism is abolished already. It is gone. It's not about being revolutionary or not, it's that Christianity, by bestowing consciousness to previously unconscious human species, forces the human species to be revolutionary, since the Myth dictates the shape of the Reality. No one actually is a pagan. Even if they think they are, they're NOT, they cannot comprehend what paganism really is. It's not being a revolutionary that's important, but that, one shouldn't be a sham. But, true, paganism is a treasury that stores primordial mythology, or in Jungian terms, archetypal images. And primordial mythology is in lack in traditional Christianity since there needed to be a break from the long poetic sleep; to be awakened means to be severed from the Earth, from Matter. It's natural for artist to be drawn to it. I was and am drawn to it, too. When I was a teenager I read world mythologies again and again, I was addicted to it. It's like a source of nutrition, but food is food, and nothing else: you shouldn't indulge in eating.
OK. Novalis. I think it's obvious that he's in the line of cosmogony, because the Jena Romantics are following Boehme, who belongs to a long line of German symbolist theology which belongs in turn to a long line of cosmic theology that is best represented by Origen and Dionysius the Areopagite, and for whom the central theme of divine drama is the Universe's, or God's, becoming self-conscious by means of human being's becoming conscious and being individuated and acknowledging the Creation, while it is expressed in strange terms like dark God, dark urge, dark ground of unconsciousness, etc.
Now symbolically darkness is nearly always feminine and more-or-less correlates with matter, potency, passivity. Goethe was obsessed with the morphological generation of Life, and Novalis in one of his poems wrote something like "the whole world will be one flesh", I don't recall the exact wording. There's this general pattern. And finally, in Teilhard, who was unconsciously following them but more focused on Pauline orthodox, it is nearly manifest (anyway all of the philosophico-theologies are actually orthodox Pauline in their core). It isPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>81
I might need one more day to reply this thread. :-)
Btw, saw your new layout and footer!