how to disable the feature Must attach image

New theme copy-paste from https://deep-swarm.xyz/thoughts/

The 1.3k lines of css is horrible!,,,,

I set all

force_image_op

to false.

The code is so badly written LMAO it's a pain in the ass to customize, but well it's an imageboard software what do you expect.

>>36
Nothing can scare me (even if the bloating 1.3k css), but when I saw the official comments displayed on mod.php?/edit_page/, I was really taken aback… As I understand it, a forum that focuses on INTERACTIVITY (like the vichan we're discussing) should be very well rounded in this regard.

Tried hard to configure markup rules.

Test onion posting

Finally… I forgot set rules location ~ \.php$ {} for server { server_name T.onion; }!

Now it werks.

>>41

BTW, hope to see some contents on cooking(that based) and VoidLinux config/tutorial. If you wish.

I've installed Void after the legendary first arch install (first try of linux 2 yrs ago), and was basically put off by its PM (xbps-install). In fact, the PM issue is not a problem, NixOS basically has a new PM style that I'm even less familiar with. For me I'll definitely try Void and NixOS.

Another quick question, what's your opinion/thinking on this kind of site? https://thricegreat.neocities.org/

>>43
Not that concerned about cooking. I'm not a bad cook, as I suppose, and while I do not cook complex dishes for myself if I want to I can, but I'm an absolutely intuitive cook. I follow no plan and no recipe, just improvise and try things out. So long as you can think and use your imagination cooking is the easiest thing in the world.

Don't really think void needs a tutorial. The handbook and the man pages are good: crisp, without redundant info. I'm still learning but there's not much to learn. Maybe runit needs to be accustomed to, but I've been using artix for some years, and AFAIK it's easier to learn than systemd. The package managing is a bit frustrating since when you wanna compile something it starts to be annoying, but the package manager itself is very simple. Of coursepacman -SOMETHING is way more straightforward, no denial of that fact.

The site. It's clean, but the site breaks my eyes, and I'm not inclined to install a darkreader or such. Of course you can customize the default background and texts, but that breaks hell a lot of sites. And personally I prefer to use the resources you've got: make it readable, clean, functional. Not that into that kind of minimalism.

I like what he says, but maybe too shallow, or put it in a better way, matter-of-fact, to my taste. I like fringe and crazy things.

You see I don't even have that nerve to re-CSS the site. I just want things to work.

Markup configuration is merely about regex…Of course I'm not autistic enough to use regex everyday, so I've nearly forgotten everything about it, but you can just mimic and try things. I tried to have a set of org-mode style markups, but NO, they interfere unintentionally too much with writings.

Further since I need math I cannot use the underscore, _, for italics, since things such as
\[code\]
a0, a2
\[/code\]
would become a0, a2. How dumb it is.

>>45
Ja I actually don't know how to generate a code block with \[code\]this thing\[/code\], maybe

codeblock

?
Meh.

>>44
Based on the word improvise you mentioned, I actually thought about the same word when I started cooking, and as you can guess, I got to know a bunch of JP underground bands (high rise, LRD etc.) when I was a teenager, and I've listened to all sorts of improvisation (some Indian masters), or at least I spent a lot of time with it.

Back to the point about improvise cooking, I used to not follow any recipes too, even when I was making some big dishes like roast chicken, I would do as i wish with my whole confident. And as long as I knew the basics of marinating the meat, and had some decent sauces, I could do well. However, not really suitable for serving to a friend who arrives unexpectedly one day (actually never happended).

The freshness of the ingredients is the only thing i need to consider, if we all agree that improvised cooking is acceptable (for you, I'm guessing you like the way you cook and have overcome some of the basic problems already). For myself, without my own farmland, life in a countryside-like place would be difficult, and I'm not going to lie…: this has ALWAYS been one of the things that has prevented me from thinking-reading-writing properly. In fact, I noticed that you once complained about the "supermarkets not being open all the time (orange juice?)" thing, and yes, this stupid thing is so much not worth mentioning, but I feel you! And I vividly remember me having to carry a huge bag of ridiculously plastic-wrapped veg/meat home, and this little pain continue… Anyway, this makes me headache, so I tried to ask for a solution.

>>44
>The package managing is a bit frustrating since when you wanna compile something it starts to be annoying, but the package manager itself is very simple.

Thanks for the confirmation. I love the feeling of having confident in something COMPLEX but GOOD.

>… or put it in a better way, matter-of-fact, to my taste. I like fringe and crazy things.
>I'm a paradigmatic 458 and lack the traits of 6s, so I fucking don't care, and maybe that's a problem: I suppose the owner of the site digdeeper.club is a 648. He warns. He speaks truth. ( http://itmensf6tlh4ccibncmbeeidaaw7imhhsbovddstyujmfarks42bxiqd.onion/b/res/16.html#q30 )

I know what you say, if I'm accurate, thricegreat & digdeeper probably both give you a similar feeling: >matter-of-fact.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted/improperly quoted anything.

>>47
Yeah, japanoise & indian classical, broadly jazz, heavy-psych, the culture of the 70s, etc.
Listened to Les Rallizes Denudes, High Rise, Fushitsusha, Taj Mahal Travellers etc. PSF records back then, too. I like LRD & high rise, but japanoise in general meh.

Maybe there's this lack of what might be called transcendence & magnificence. I don't dislike twisted, grotesque things, but, the grotesque feeling of, say, Opeth/Dismember, that splendid & dark medieval-gothic style, the passionate style of Duerer, Caravaggio, Piranesi etc. that originates from, so to speak, the tension between the Dionysian & the Apollonian, differs from that of Japanese avant-garde. The latter, more associated to some sort of Buddhist perversion as I observe it, lacks "spiritual" depth,
Listened to & read much about Indian classical music but now remember none. Maybe should do it again since I'm interested in Indian logic now.

I literally go to the market every 2 or 3 days, but it's still frustrating. Think I'm being childish & lazy & maybe bugman somehow. Just don't want to spend time cooking & maybe I don't care much about the quality of life except for the quality of drinking (need tons of fruit juice, wine). I want things to be as simple as possible, so basically I just eat steak & vegetable & fruit, when not in the feeling of going to the market, spaghetti aglio e olio dressed with mushrooms & shrimps. The simpler the better.

>>48
Yes. Matter of fact, and maybe too much concern about things that are of "this world". Maybe much too political. But it's not politics that disinterest me. Jonathan Bowden, I like his speeches a lot, such as
>Because in the Hindu aristocratic and warrior tradition there are men of impersonal violence. Titans who walk the earth, who walk beyond good and evil, and are unrestrained, whose cruelty and ardor are impersonal, non-material, for idealistic purposes, and is never done for human gain or for their own gain, or for that of their families and their tribes except in the most indirect of ways.
>And I believe that’s what life’s like. I believe that’s what happens when a sun forms, when a galaxy forms, when one ends, when a life begins, and when a life ends. That for me is life. Fire, energy, glory, and thinking.
It's intense & transcendental.

>>49
Ok. Japanoise-guy, they love being document-filmed and also the noise culture black-and-white aesthetic, >culture. This is what i've seen. Kaoru Abe is different, he is my dead >friend, maybe. And these countercoulture heavy-psyche-noise guys are nihilists, one of them opened a 针灸 shop when he were old. >lacks "spiritual" depth. Correct, i have a lot to say in this topic, but i prefer to stop here now. Cuz, some of my old friends are now so obsessed with noise culture, I'm having a hard time talking to them, sigh.
About Kaoru Abe, there is now an active saxophonist Harutaka Mochizuki following in his footsteps and, as far as I know, he loves Georg Trakl.
So to speak black metal. I didn't grow up following some real black metal, because I gave my teenager time to underground psych/prog music. Later on I really loved Peste Noire, until now. Peste Noire fans are crazy, and as I know, most of them are now well acquainted with Evola/Pound etc., and they definitely don't leave Nietzsche behind. I like them, but I would very much like this group to use Linux/BSD. pay attention to their tech life, but it's almost impossible and seems to be rare…
Ok. everything mentioned above has nothing to do with Kairos/Ircam music, and Xenakis, you know. While some electronic music fans (like Autechre, WATMM forum guys) will absolutely love Xenakis… Too complicated.

>>50
>too much concern about things that are of "this world"
Unix-Philo style. I think most GNU/Linux/BSD etc. supporters from all walks of life can sense that, something is wrong. As you said, we do have them to thank. People use those clean softwares, even do some contributing&coding, that's all, it's hard to go deeper than that. I occasionally feel the Intensity, but it goes away quickly and using GNU/Linux feels more like a funny DIY. If more is said on this matter, it becomes a >culture. A lot of Liberal Arts students are now studying Cyberculture. They post translations about ACC on that green platform you-know-what.
>Fire, energy, glory, and thinking.
Your recommendation of Jonathan Bowden these days is refreshing to me, it's not as varg's philosophy (if he has that philosophy).

>>52
It's difficult for a person to be both tech-savy and be literate, and be artistic or be religious (they're the same, the latter being in the sense of sacredness; it's totally possible for an atheist to be religious and for a guy who fell for the orthodox meme or become a Evangelist to be unreligious), and at the same time be acquainted with fringe subcultures. Most art students are posers. Most tech-savy guys have no interest in the life of the mind. Most 'literate' people only think they understand a thing while they're just being snobs. Being artistic and religious means being intense and deep, but there's a tension between being intense & deep and being acquainted with fringe subculture since every culture is a mob nowadays.
The cultural unity is lost. The seven liberal arts are vulgarized. Logic, e.g., recursion theory, these should really never be decoupled from higher music and literature, and the latter should be studied in conjunction with religion and philosophy, etc. But now a logic guy might be a weeb coomer, and a higher music enthusiast might have no knowledge regarding religion except for muh humanist-atheism and Deleuze and whatever. People neither read nor think, just endlessly follow whatever trend, and they're oftentimes snobs.
Bowden is a true Nietzschean, though somehow stained by nationalism and maybe racism. I've never seen a Nietzschean so quintessential. While I'm not truly a Nietzschean I respect them provided that they're true. So with Evola, Pound, etc.

>>53
>be both tech-savy and be literate, and be artistic or be religious
Anyway, I thought of xenakis. He has all of these qualities (heavily apart from most of the Ircam-macos-composers), both Dionysian&Apollonian.
>a higher music enthusiast might have no knowledge regarding religion except for muh humanist-atheism and Deleuze and whatever.
Arne Deforce is probably the best of those who like to spend their days pressing Deleuze into their interpretations of the music. But anyhow, it is impossible to know any religion. You must have listened his collaboration with Mika Vainio, which exactly proves that he's extraordinary and different. I like Mika Vainio. And since Deforce is a player, not a composer, some of the bad influences that might come out of it won't be obvious (as long as one doesn't read some booklets). Btw… It's really sad that some of today's booklets of serious/high music are full of Deleuze, it's just not a kind of Deleuzian at all. Deleuze himself is an avant-garde/prog lover. This is not too surprised though. He doesn't want to be a serious philosopher at all, he killed himself like a real punk. Himself is pure, I think. Like a tutorial-thing for normies today. (And only need to be implemented at the first place, it feels like Rimbaud's saying: >One must be absolutely modern.) And Pinhas, as a student of him was used to collaborate a lot with Merzbow. I kinda like Merzbow, he was a dadaist when he was young, cool punk guy and far away from some rural japanoise…

>>53
I remember that you seemed to hold out some hopes for the >acoustic & software devs, and thought they would be the most possible descendants of Xenakis, compared with those conservatories' composers. This is maybe a choice between inheriting the Xenakis developed by Schaeffer (Electro-Acoustic, GRM early days etc.), or another Xenakis; The Xenakis of UPIC+Formalised music, or another. Idk. This is a vague feeling I always have. It's hard for a conservatory student/composer to know a Schaeffer-Xenakis, this is TRUE. Schaeffer is somehow a Avant-Garde guy and serious DSP researcher. Again, for both paths I basically feel like nothing really satisfying has come out of it… Old secrets and discoveries have already been published by him, new blood is always needed for whatever comes next. Idk What is it, unknown. Every time I listen to his Electro-Acoustic works, it just like: shocked, endless feelings of nothingness, and suddenly become aggressive. To face a terrible abyss, with full of temptations. Not the same as listening to Eonta or the like.

Btw, regarding the D&A, let me use Ryoji Ikeda and Autechre as an example (I'm still full of musical things at this moment after all). They're almost at a comparable place in the electronic music history today, I feel that. And there is a tension between their D&A intensities/degrees. (Exai of Autechre & any Data- of Ikeda). I can fully appreciate and love Autechre, but I'm not entirely sure about the imaginative nature of Ryoji Ikeda's compositional approaches. It seems like some files of the Pd implementation are really needed to find out, or, might have to look at those exhibition booklets of him.

>>56
I will read this again. https://itinerariummentis.org/the-need-for-a-metaphysics-of-sound/

>>54
I'm not really an archetypal artist but rather a metaphysician, so factually I shouldn't say too many, but for me the crucial thing is meaningfulness.
Now I don't percept any deeper meaning in the compositions of most composers, in particular in the formal aspect. IMO things are better said here:
https://itinerariummentis.org/historical-concordance-of-music-and-metaphysical-cosmology/
So there's this correspondence of pattern and meaning between the general shape of metaphysics that shapes the world and the shape of music, i.e.
>Artists in the contemporary world, who are serious with their profession, are most confused and bewildered by the meaningfulness of their profession, since the metaphysico-cosmological order that perpetuated the gradual evolution of the arts of the previous ages had disintegrated, with Art being increasingly manifestly subordinated to various crudely political ideologies, consciouslly or unconsciouslly, after numerous failure of utopian ideologies which assigned meaning to Art by embedding it inside a historical framework so that artists can become the prophets of the future who regulates and forms the reality.
Put it in another way:
>不和谐音只有在形而上学意义上不再与谐和音有区分时才会成为可接受的，对其接受度的变化远远不是耳朵、听力的接受，而是对乐音本身的意义的理解的重构。被训练的不是人的耳朵、对声音的感知，是对声音的意义的感知；当乐音之间的和谐不再是天上秩序的影子只是两组机械振动频率的巧合时，谐和遍失去了意义。
And maybe except for Xenakis' works I don't see any truly meaningful music produced that really captures the reality and exhibits a possible future. I'm being extremely picky here. Even this Bernhard Lang or that whatever. Just too superficial, too thoughtless, too typically "artist": Beethoven is first and foremost a true philosopher, a great mind, and then a musician. Though neither can I express what's meaningful in, say, Bohor or Gendy 3.

>>56
It's not really about software dev, but about forming a conceptual framework that really says something meaningful. Hard to tell. It's not solely about music, but about the interpretation of what - in Aristotelian jargon - pure matter is. As far as I can tell what's crucial for the modern age is "materiality": a deeper understanding of matter per se, not of form. In its deepest core it's about Mariology, theologically speaking, and about the divinisation of matter, etc. It's about the unfinished project of Teilhard, Hesse, Jung, Scheling, Novalis, Goethe etc.

Technically Ikeda is shallow. I think's he's more or less completely intuitive. But I like the way he strips out the innermost core of sound, namely sine waves and blips and so on, and organize them. His sound reminds me of the vision given by the series of diagrams in the picture attached.

>>56
>> 54
AFAI can tell, the problem with contemporary artists is that they really don't wanna engage with any truly serious philosophy. They're thoughtless and uninformed but pretend to be thoughtful and informed. They don't know what's really going on with the, so to speak, Geist. They don't learn, they still repeat this Hoelderlin and that Deleuze. It feels extremely dumb and snobbish, while some equally dumb and snobbish art students might think that they really know a thing about muh higher thoughts. It's like compulsively consuming apple products and know nothing but dongles and apps, but at the same time talking about technology and the future. It's dumb as hell.
Serious isn't academic. Deleuze was a serious philosopher, just like Nietzsche was. But those artist… I'm not sure. If you think about, say, Beethoven & Gropius & Malevich & Xenakis & Eric Gill, read their writings and know what they read back then and so on, and then think about those guys, it's just different. It's general cultural decline; they're not avant-garde enough & are not serious enough.

>>58
Historical Concordance of Music and Metaphysical Cosmology This essay is so overwhelming and good writing. I'm going to start with *Acoustics*, which I'm more familiar with, and currently try to compose a meaningful reply, from every details that I came to think about. This may take a day long. ;-)

>>58
You've said that the higher form in Xenakis's music has a power of destruction, a kind of violence that is objective. One question that continually intrigues me is the relationship between Xenakis's early war experience and the manifestation of violence and destruction in his works. Mostly importantly, how it ultimately points to a demand for Form that is not just about destruction. He did put something personal into the final stage of Bohor. The personal experience of these artists, could I also call it a kind of divinisation of material? They must have "self-overbecoming" something. Xenakis, Varese, Klee, etc. They've done a transmutation at an early stage.

To what extent do Form and Matter communicate with Apollo and Dionysus? If the Form is almost synonymous with >Geist (Hanslick), does Matter reflect something like the emotion variety or instance?

Again, to confirm the authentic task of composers (create form and eternal meaning, regarding the activity of composing), and use a higher perspective to think, set the musical works (they composed) themself as the agent. Which is to say, the work itself has already become a domain. These composers should communicate with a higher form by using the form in their composition.

Form yields the eternal, the eternal yields the meaning, then a self-claim truth should be generated by the artists themself.

As I observed, the issue of art students' use of Deleuze is their great egerness to take this philosophy and try to >apply it immediately to their real life, which is essentially due to a lack of confidence in their own intelligence.

Wherever there's a NeueMachina large font, there's an art student, or artist.

But actually I rare see art students rephrase Hoelderlin. His late poetries and the 2-volume translations/comments is not easy to read.

>>60
I know very little about artists that alive, and their works. It's true that there are still many among them who love repeat Deleuze. Btw, I once saw a filmmaker who wrote emacs plugins to better edit his film scripts, it's simply good.
I actually know a very few poets who show a kind of >primitivism (not those dumb web3./crypto digital nomader), they were born as art students, but they would be honest with themselves. Writing poetry makes them clear and pure. But in order to move to a higher thinking, they still needed a metamorphosis, at least they should stay away from most of the French philosophers, and SNS, stay away from group chat, start writing seriously.

>>62
The whole problem might be that, is it really the case that Forms are eternal? In what sense are they eternal? What's the meaning of 'eternal' here? What renders them eternal?
We've come across, through the centuries, a plethora of 'eternal forms' that are no longer felt as eternal. There's something that might rightly be called eternal, but we don't have a grasp on it, and now we even don't really have a plausible and authentic notion of the eternal, only rhetorics devoid of actual meaning. No one actually believes any eternity-talk he's uttering.
If being eternal means being Platonic, being in a realm that's separate from 'this' world. I'll say that even mathematical objects do not seem to be eternal, from the perspective of intuitionists.
No one actually believes in the schema of cosmology, for which there's a timeless One, from which all meanings and forms emanate. The schema is already reversed in Schelling's time: the cosmos is itself generated, and Forms are, literally, formed, generated. And for Xenakis, they're stochastically emergent; from destruction emerges creation. This is in line with Deleuze's philosophy, or better, Whitehead's & Schelling's philosophy, of which Deleuze's is merely a hipster-grade paraphrase.

>>63
Their problem is that they never really do deep researches and follow the fashion. And when a philosophy seems to be fashionable and 'cool', they paraphrase without actually understanding the content, the history, the philosophy, the underlying spirit, etc. But they think they do, out of their snobbery and their unwillingness to actually think and read and contemplate. They just follow, while they think they're not following.

>>65
Good morning. Hope your migraine has eased a little bit!
I thought, the universe was in a continuous non-stop process of creation-destruction-creation-destruction etc., in a kind of turbulence, vibration. While this is not entirely convincing, however, from a poet's view, it should be, and as far as I understand it, this is an extension of Nietzsche philosophy, and perhaps something to do with broader Buddhism or Hinduism, rituals. The Myth of the Eternal Return.
One thing I'm curious about is how this self-becoming cosmology relates to theology, or religion. Does it relates to the concept of resurrection?
Xenakis believed in Creatio ex nihilo. And he did think that chance needs to be calculated,
>Chance is a rare thing and a snare. It can be constructed up to a certain point with great difficulty, by means of complex reasoning which is summarized in mathematical formulae; it can be constructed a little, but never improvised or intellectually imitated.
>stochastics, guarantees first that in a region of precise definition slips will not be made, and then furnishes a powerful method of reasoning and enrichment of sonic processes.
And it sets his music apart from some improvised chance music.

>>65
The word render is precise and it is the only one that is concrete. If take his stochastic composing as an example, 3.4. here seems to say what a render should be.

>>67
Thanks. It's actually a catharsis since I can fantisize that I'm something like a Nietzsche and feel superior to the vast ocean of plebs.
So if it's a process rather than returns then I don't think it's anything a cosmology that a Hindu can even imagine; it's totally Christian, Boehmian & Schellingian. Hinduism was - and still is - a bin for Europeans to project their own religion onto:
>The progress of the world, the gradual manifestation or self-realization of God, is a struggle against opposition; since the full possibilities of being were not realized all at once, and are not yet realized, there must in the original nature of things be some impediment, some principle of retardation, destined to be triumphed over, indeed, but not without suffering and temporary defeats. The Life-Force advances - as Robinet had said - fumblingly, by trial and error. There is a tragic element in cosmic and in human history; the world-process is ein Wechselspiel von Hemmen und von Streben.

As to Resurrection, the correspondence is simple if one is just to pay lip service. The material world is sanctified by the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the second Adam, and that's what the whole Universe must undergo. To be witnessed, awakened, incarnated, and confirmed, suffer universal death, so that in the end, a new heaven and a new earth, that bestows meaning to all the turmoil. Things can only be completed when life ends; no more generation, no more division and creation, and only upon the completion a totality, a life complete, emerges.

Yes, that's ultimately what individuates his music and makes his music so powerful and ecstatic. The brutality of matter & contingence, of those things that cannot be conceived of by a finite mind, he harnesses the turmoil of this dark ocean, directly, so that form arises. And it's by means of so-called "cold" mathematics.

>>69
I've been thinking about these two words for some time, and I'm probably still unsure: why does the return won't involve some kind of motion and becoming. There's also some curiosity about process:
1. Whether this process occurs only once for each human being, or for the human-being as a whole. Or whether it is really not about the times it happens, but rather the fact that this process is eternal, only in the sense of forming the form, of becoming, it could be eternal.
2. What does creation emerged after destruction mean in your philosophy. For example, does the very first creation after the first destruction, also take place in this whole process, or does the next destruction and the next creation emerged after this destruction all included in this becoming process.
Here, you've described a destruction-collapse point:
>The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There is going to be an End to the World. This World, while not an artifact of a demiurge, still lost its inherent meaning; the cosmic order dissolved. With the dissolution of the cosmic order that is in itself sacred, human beings are destined to ascend upward and return to the God, the Absolute, the Infinite. No earthly concern and nothing that is in this world, nothing that is finite, can truly determine the meaning and purpose of human existence, any longer. (Pre-Collapse, http://itmens77beqdonoqos4tybglw7vuui4m36dnrrfbfnvkif3yhjukgjqd.onion/to-face-the-modern/)
As far as I could understand, it seems that the destruction here is really only meant to happen once.
>human beings are destined to ascend upward and return to the God, the Absolute, the Infinite.
So my question now is whether or not this post-destruction creation only exists after human beings have literally ascended. And Jesus was factually the first person who successfully ascend.

>>69
As to the thinking of cosmology, and resurrection, I might go back to Dionysus again. Hoelderlin and some romantics thought Dionysus and Jesus were the one. Dionysus was once cut into parts and suffered to death in myth, and the Dionysus pagan religion make him resurrect once, giving him the similar meaning of resurrection. According to Schelling, the Dionysus we're talking about is the second Dionysus, the reborn Dionysus. a screenshot here attached here.
And, Nietzsche celebrates the resurrection of Dionysus too. Another thing is (related to my earlier questions), here he is basically saying Dionysus's rebirth should be infinite in times, number,
>Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return again from destruction. (Nietzsche)
"Eternally reborn and return again" is somewhat different from what I felt about the cosmology you described. His eternal here means infinite times. So, it's here, that I start to thought that, eternal, or the cosmos, is in a non-stop process of desctruction-creation. I need more training in this. I've merely stopped reading philosophy for a while in the past 1.5 years, studying acoustics and cs, but it's about to start up again.
Btw, I became quite interested in Boehme after reading lots of Novalis' poems, unfortunately, translations are almost non-exist. Now it seems necessary to read Schelling, and then maybe Fichte. And I might not be able to read Hegel at all.

>>70
OK. I think things are heavily confused here. First, regarding Paganism and Nietzsche.
Dionysus is just one sample of dying-and-rising deity. There's a plethora of them. The romantics knew little about world religion back then, they just kept on projecting because traditional Christianity was paganised. They need to use an archetype that's similar to Christ to talk about Christianity.
Dionysus in its Pagan form is just a god of seasonal change, of fertility. Similar to Demeter. Paganism denies the meaningfulness of Time. If everything recurs then there's no genuine meaning in Time whatsoever. The death and resurrection of Dionysus, in this sense, is fully traditional. It's embedded inside a pagan cosmology where an eternal order is prior to any process - if there's process at all. So-called destruction there is a sham one, it's just "winter", and after this winter the eternal order comes back, without any modification - there's no creation, just something pre-existent and that will go on to exist. There's no genuine process and no genuine creation in Paganism. It's seasonal. There's no "process" whatsoever in Pagan picture. Pagan religion denys change, there's no change, no meaningful change, at all, in Paganism. Jonathan Bowden and so on are projecting Christianity onto Paganism. Without Christianity there's no possibility for evolution to be conceived, because the whole world is permeated by a magical order that's literally eternal.
The reason why Nietzsche chose this ancient mythology is that in his time Christianity was fully Manicheanized (i.e. extreme Augustinianism): meaningfulness departed from this world. That's the meaning of "Collapse" in my article. The present world has no meaning intrinsic to it since this eternal order is gone, since now Time actually has a meaning. Its structure, while previously was a circle, now is a line. There's gonna be an End, so whatever "eternal order" is meaningless, but people didn't really realize that the pseudo-Christian order they're living in is a sham one.
>哦，我的弟兄们，曾经有人看透了善人和义人的心，他当时、 说道：“他们是法利赛人”。但人们不理解他说的话。
>善人和义人，他们本人也不能理解他：他们的精神已被囚禁在他们的好良心之中。善人的愚蠢乃是深不可测的聪明。
>可是，这却是真实情况：善人必然是法利赛人一他们别无选择！
>善人必须要把发现自己的美德的人钉在十字架上！这也悬真实情况！

>>72
So what I wrote about in that article presupposed a fully Christian cosmology. The Word became flesh, and by means of His becoming flesh, true becoming and true process became possible. But this possibility needs to be acknowledged by human beings. The philosophy of Nietzsche, and Romantic obsession with Greek mythology, is the consequence of orthodox Christianity, or the Church's, failure to acknowledge it. So in my point of view Modernism is fully, totally, Christian, in that it acknowledges that now the meaning of being human is no longer to be embedded inside an eternal, pagan, traditional order, but to generate time and participate in Creation.
"Eternally reborn and return again". The dying-and-rising God, in Jungian term, is an image of the archetype Self, which also embodies totality, Universe, Cosmos.
Jesus is the first person that incarnated Word. Word, through which Creation was and is being realized, so that Time really became and becomes.
The Cosmos itself, the Macrocosmos, which is the Church, is the Mystical Body of Christ, the universal Self, the universal Man, the body of second Adam, which needs to be incarnated, by individual human beings' following Christ and incarnating the Word and realizing the Creation. 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.
Now every incarnation is followed by death and resurrection. 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.
Incarnation-Death-and-resurrection is universal in that every instance of Creation is realized by the incarnation of Word, and death of material body, and the resurrection of material body. The total death of the Universe is one instance, the ultimate incarnation and the ultimate resurrection.

>>72
Now, finally regarding Dionysus. Dionysus, as I've said, is just one instance of a plethora of dying-and-rising Gods.
He's relatively foreign to the Greeks. His mythology has structural similarity to Christ. He's a half-man half-god. He's torn into pieces, and he rose again. And in some version those divine sparks of his is embedded into human beings, which is similar to how the Blood and Flesh of Christ is taken in by human beings, and how human beings are by means of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit made sons of God.
And many, a plethora of, myth has structural similarity to Christ's death-and-resurrection narrative. It's universal. A hero, a god, dies, descends to hell, and conquers it, and rise again, and ascends. It's so universal that now Dionysus just doesn't seem special at all.
I'll say that he's a premonition of Christ, and his myth is completed by the life of Jesus. Romantics' obsession with Dionysus is literally a hermenuetic technique that they needed to utilize since Christianity at that time was so corrupt. It's still corrupt, since, well, you need to accommodate all kinds of dumb fucks.

>>72
OK, I think I really need to write about this myth of dying-and-rising god and incarnation and death and resurrection. Systematically. It's an extremely tough one, since theology is extremely difficult, but guess I really need to write one.

>>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 circle may be another matter, however, they may literally follow a kind of paganism tradition as well.
With regard to your earlier comment that Novalis was in the same line as Jung, Teilhard, and even Scheling, in terms of the divinisation of matter, I would try to start from here for a broader theology. Regarding the most important figure, Dun Scotus, tbh, I first came to know him through Deleuze's interpretation (well, maybe rephrasing) of his notion, univocity of being.

>>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 is by extension that I interpret Novalis as in the line of thinkers that concentrate on the divinization of Matter, which is really about Mariology, about Marian dogmas, about her Assumption and Immaculate Conception, but this might be for the time being too obscure. It's written nowhere, and as far as I can tell, it's something that will be gradually developed and recognized in the next five hundred years.

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