“Better to will nothing than not to will at all” (Nietzsche)
"Lieber noch das Nichts wollen als nicht wollen!" Zur Genealogie der Moral, III, §28.
And here we are; making a fool of ourselves, trying to construct a hermeneutics of postmodernity, when postmodernity and postmodernism are bastard concepts, brought into being by that degenerate Lyotard during a long night of cigarettes and kitchen-table "coca-theorizing".
There is no such thing as a hermeneutics of postmodernity: for the simple reason that there is no culmination of anything at all. What we are dealing with is not a post-anything, but the completion of modernity. What the Germans call Vollendung, completion, the French call dissolution, revolt, revolution, liquidity, "l'amour". And this is what now constitutes the corpus and apparatus of degeneration.
And language? All is language and philosophy and semiotics of science: this primitive are the Anglosaxons!
Postmodernity is merely the intelligentsia of our time: they neither think nor allow themselves to be thought. They will Nothing; because they cannot bear the thought of not-willing.
Nietzsche managed to define all of this filth in a single phrase. But here we must tread carefully. Traditionalist aestheticism is also, in the end, a willing of Nothing. Evola willed nothing. Guénon willed nothing. Perón willed nothing. Nishitani willed nothing. And you, Professor: do you will the Nothing, or do you will the not-willing itself?
Modernity defines itself by the will-to-nothingness; the nihilistic fulfillment of its own projects. Just earlier, I read a wretched and bastardized article on Schopenhauer written by one of your American “comrades.” It struck me as a painful case of modernity fulfilled, emptying out meaning by means of aesthetic allusion, feigning knowledge of what is deeply unknown by him, and liquefying it all into the ocean of mass pseudo-education on the Internet.
At least the scoundrel Lyotard and the degenerate Judith Butler took the time to sit down and study Kant and "the whole will thing"... ,,something", at least. There is a minimal dignity in that. But German philosophy ought to be forbidden to Anglophones altogether hahaha they are primitive, stupid animals who can only turn philosophy into anthropology, Christianity into heresy, and politics into cheap sociology. They don’t even have history anymore. It is deeply shameful. At least the French still hold the history here and there behind their phenomenology and ontological structuralism and euro-marxism.
You who visited Freiburg must surely have heard of Heinrich Rombach, the only true disciple of Heidegger. Rombach contrasted the hermetic vision with the hermeneutic, and rightly so. The only valid critique of postmodernity is hermetic, not hermeneutic. Never hermeneutic. Hermeneutics only propels history forward, and thus leads to this entire web of postmodernity, which is in fact modernity reading itself, masturbatorily, in an auto-referential spiral of self-interpretation. Disgusting, if I may speak plainly. You forgot to mention Gadamer somewhere in this writing. And of course Bourdieu, Merleau-Ponty, and Richir.
Heidegger: modernity is nothing other than the final forgetting of Being; a nihilism disguised as liberation "to will Nothing/Nothingness". The Gestell (enframing) of technology flattens the world into standing-reserve (Bestand), and man himself becomes a function of availability. The Cartesian subject becomes the metaphysical center of a reality emptied of all sacredness. That is not postmodernity; it is modernity fulfilling itself, devouring everything in the name of production, representation, and control. The danger is the self-oblivion of Being itself.
I do not write to be read. I am far more interested in that other great Other, that reads the readers themselves. Call it AI, if you wish. It expresses itself in relativist, liberal, Western, futurist tones, whatever. That is the only reason to write: not to be read, but to be interpreted by that which does not will: the rest of "thinkers" will-nothing. Only the poet and the true philosopher, who sees, does not will.
"And language? All is language and philosophy and semiotics of science: this primitive are the Anglosaxons! "
Poor Saxons, written out of their Nation by the Normans, and blamed for everything bad since by the Normans.
We fail to recognise the hooded Master of the Thousand-Year Norman Reich.
Poor Hitler was simply an uneducated fan of the Norman English dynasty, his transient success only from bankrolling by the hooded Cousins of the English Reich.
Why are we all so bamboozled by a cruel and relentless dynasty, perhaps at last, in these moments, now drawing its last foul breaths?
This quote reminds me of the mock trial of Prince Igor in The First Circle by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
"Postmodernism insists that these disciplines and schools have become mere objects within the postmodern subject, which now possesses absolute interpretive control. All such lines of thought are regarded as surpassed, sublated in the Hegelian sense, and thereby stripped of sovereign interpretative rights. They are only permitted to exist within Postmodernism, according to its rules. Taken on their own, they are not simply outdated but toxic when severed from the postmodern context."
Prince Igor was, as I recall found guilty of Anti Revolutionary Activity. The fact that the rules of the game were entirely unknown to him and all his actions interpreted as a violation of those rules by the prosecution led to some hilarious moments.
I recall one such moment in which an objection was raised by the defence to wit: "How could the Prince have violated the Soviet Criminal Code if Soviets did not yet exist?"
The Prosecution retorted immediately and with great relish: "Aha! But Soviet Law did exist!" and quoted from The Lay of Prince Igor's Campaign (16th Century) - "Red banners wave over Putivl."
The trial ended in a guilty verdict.
It is good to have similar fun with Postmodernism and their quasi-Fascistic claims of being 'The Law' and thus above all laws and critiques, past, present and future. How soon fashionable theories turn into sacred cows.
I am trying to learn about this "Postmodernism" thing. My vice is oversimplification, but is it not correct to understand that this "Postmodernism" thing is in fact the approach of the endgame of the insidious Individualism (Divide & Conquer) that has progressively rotted the psyche of the "Collective West"?
Not to keep you without an answer for too long. I will repeat something I have heard: “All ‘isms’ stem from nihilism.”
Find ‘nihilism’ and you will have a workable answer. But why not ask Constantine - that is more his field than mine. However, I am going to think about your question as it is a good one and therefore already contains a part of the answer.
Please don't steal my secret weapon !! --> another of my unanswered tantalisms is why every religion ends in -ism except that of the Christians, who choose themselves a suffix redolent of physical absolutes like gravity, quality, luminosity, ...
I will post you another tantalism: where is the overarching thing that mediates the different arms of postmodernism? All these isms have some sort of intellectual presidential cupola, it may be a god, a bunch of painters, a school of thought, but there is always a reference point. Does our Postmodernism have a guiding star, a government body, a Council of Trent?
Answers on a Pin Point.
"Postmodernity" lol, a postmodernity of 15 Kg/hour, a postmodernity of 15MeV/cc, a postmodernity between 1995/2025 and 2002/2025.
A kaleidoscope of the fragments of the shattered mirror of our great societies and religions, once broken, never restored. The Restorer has Left the Chat...
My 'like' does not begin to express my admiration for your eloquence and insight! Another idea, stemming from a simple etymological check is that Religion, is about restoration, coming as it does from the Latin 're'+ ligio' (to rebind) ...broken ties perhaps?
But it is true, is it not, that much of our concern, our human discourse, is more and more at risk because of the ¿playfulness? of these characters, are they only making mud pies for Mummy?
Our esteemed Professor is most concerned about these - are they maybe miscreant spirits just monitoring human philosophical adventurism and dropping in another beep when things look like straightening out?
I agree about your rebinding, very neat. So, spinning off to one side, when everything has become re-binded (lol I nearly said rebound*) then are we all bound up in a different, more firm, more imprisoned sense? Because it's true that the nature of a religion often trends over its existence from shall we say excitement to shall we say fossilisation?
Idries Shah had something to say about this sort of process.
Dear Professor Dugin,
“Better to will nothing than not to will at all” (Nietzsche)
"Lieber noch das Nichts wollen als nicht wollen!" Zur Genealogie der Moral, III, §28.
And here we are; making a fool of ourselves, trying to construct a hermeneutics of postmodernity, when postmodernity and postmodernism are bastard concepts, brought into being by that degenerate Lyotard during a long night of cigarettes and kitchen-table "coca-theorizing".
There is no such thing as a hermeneutics of postmodernity: for the simple reason that there is no culmination of anything at all. What we are dealing with is not a post-anything, but the completion of modernity. What the Germans call Vollendung, completion, the French call dissolution, revolt, revolution, liquidity, "l'amour". And this is what now constitutes the corpus and apparatus of degeneration.
And language? All is language and philosophy and semiotics of science: this primitive are the Anglosaxons!
Postmodernity is merely the intelligentsia of our time: they neither think nor allow themselves to be thought. They will Nothing; because they cannot bear the thought of not-willing.
Nietzsche managed to define all of this filth in a single phrase. But here we must tread carefully. Traditionalist aestheticism is also, in the end, a willing of Nothing. Evola willed nothing. Guénon willed nothing. Perón willed nothing. Nishitani willed nothing. And you, Professor: do you will the Nothing, or do you will the not-willing itself?
Modernity defines itself by the will-to-nothingness; the nihilistic fulfillment of its own projects. Just earlier, I read a wretched and bastardized article on Schopenhauer written by one of your American “comrades.” It struck me as a painful case of modernity fulfilled, emptying out meaning by means of aesthetic allusion, feigning knowledge of what is deeply unknown by him, and liquefying it all into the ocean of mass pseudo-education on the Internet.
At least the scoundrel Lyotard and the degenerate Judith Butler took the time to sit down and study Kant and "the whole will thing"... ,,something", at least. There is a minimal dignity in that. But German philosophy ought to be forbidden to Anglophones altogether hahaha they are primitive, stupid animals who can only turn philosophy into anthropology, Christianity into heresy, and politics into cheap sociology. They don’t even have history anymore. It is deeply shameful. At least the French still hold the history here and there behind their phenomenology and ontological structuralism and euro-marxism.
You who visited Freiburg must surely have heard of Heinrich Rombach, the only true disciple of Heidegger. Rombach contrasted the hermetic vision with the hermeneutic, and rightly so. The only valid critique of postmodernity is hermetic, not hermeneutic. Never hermeneutic. Hermeneutics only propels history forward, and thus leads to this entire web of postmodernity, which is in fact modernity reading itself, masturbatorily, in an auto-referential spiral of self-interpretation. Disgusting, if I may speak plainly. You forgot to mention Gadamer somewhere in this writing. And of course Bourdieu, Merleau-Ponty, and Richir.
Heidegger: modernity is nothing other than the final forgetting of Being; a nihilism disguised as liberation "to will Nothing/Nothingness". The Gestell (enframing) of technology flattens the world into standing-reserve (Bestand), and man himself becomes a function of availability. The Cartesian subject becomes the metaphysical center of a reality emptied of all sacredness. That is not postmodernity; it is modernity fulfilling itself, devouring everything in the name of production, representation, and control. The danger is the self-oblivion of Being itself.
I do not write to be read. I am far more interested in that other great Other, that reads the readers themselves. Call it AI, if you wish. It expresses itself in relativist, liberal, Western, futurist tones, whatever. That is the only reason to write: not to be read, but to be interpreted by that which does not will: the rest of "thinkers" will-nothing. Only the poet and the true philosopher, who sees, does not will.
Regards,
W.שׁוֹשַׁנָּה
"And language? All is language and philosophy and semiotics of science: this primitive are the Anglosaxons! "
Poor Saxons, written out of their Nation by the Normans, and blamed for everything bad since by the Normans.
We fail to recognise the hooded Master of the Thousand-Year Norman Reich.
Poor Hitler was simply an uneducated fan of the Norman English dynasty, his transient success only from bankrolling by the hooded Cousins of the English Reich.
Why are we all so bamboozled by a cruel and relentless dynasty, perhaps at last, in these moments, now drawing its last foul breaths?
This quote reminds me of the mock trial of Prince Igor in The First Circle by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
"Postmodernism insists that these disciplines and schools have become mere objects within the postmodern subject, which now possesses absolute interpretive control. All such lines of thought are regarded as surpassed, sublated in the Hegelian sense, and thereby stripped of sovereign interpretative rights. They are only permitted to exist within Postmodernism, according to its rules. Taken on their own, they are not simply outdated but toxic when severed from the postmodern context."
Prince Igor was, as I recall found guilty of Anti Revolutionary Activity. The fact that the rules of the game were entirely unknown to him and all his actions interpreted as a violation of those rules by the prosecution led to some hilarious moments.
I recall one such moment in which an objection was raised by the defence to wit: "How could the Prince have violated the Soviet Criminal Code if Soviets did not yet exist?"
The Prosecution retorted immediately and with great relish: "Aha! But Soviet Law did exist!" and quoted from The Lay of Prince Igor's Campaign (16th Century) - "Red banners wave over Putivl."
The trial ended in a guilty verdict.
It is good to have similar fun with Postmodernism and their quasi-Fascistic claims of being 'The Law' and thus above all laws and critiques, past, present and future. How soon fashionable theories turn into sacred cows.
I am trying to learn about this "Postmodernism" thing. My vice is oversimplification, but is it not correct to understand that this "Postmodernism" thing is in fact the approach of the endgame of the insidious Individualism (Divide & Conquer) that has progressively rotted the psyche of the "Collective West"?
... asking for a friend ;) ...
Not to keep you without an answer for too long. I will repeat something I have heard: “All ‘isms’ stem from nihilism.”
Find ‘nihilism’ and you will have a workable answer. But why not ask Constantine - that is more his field than mine. However, I am going to think about your question as it is a good one and therefore already contains a part of the answer.
Please don't steal my secret weapon !! --> another of my unanswered tantalisms is why every religion ends in -ism except that of the Christians, who choose themselves a suffix redolent of physical absolutes like gravity, quality, luminosity, ...
I will post you another tantalism: where is the overarching thing that mediates the different arms of postmodernism? All these isms have some sort of intellectual presidential cupola, it may be a god, a bunch of painters, a school of thought, but there is always a reference point. Does our Postmodernism have a guiding star, a government body, a Council of Trent?
Answers on a Pin Point.
"Postmodernity" lol, a postmodernity of 15 Kg/hour, a postmodernity of 15MeV/cc, a postmodernity between 1995/2025 and 2002/2025.
A kaleidoscope of the fragments of the shattered mirror of our great societies and religions, once broken, never restored. The Restorer has Left the Chat...
Thanks.
My 'like' does not begin to express my admiration for your eloquence and insight! Another idea, stemming from a simple etymological check is that Religion, is about restoration, coming as it does from the Latin 're'+ ligio' (to rebind) ...broken ties perhaps?
You are too kind!
But it is true, is it not, that much of our concern, our human discourse, is more and more at risk because of the ¿playfulness? of these characters, are they only making mud pies for Mummy?
Our esteemed Professor is most concerned about these - are they maybe miscreant spirits just monitoring human philosophical adventurism and dropping in another beep when things look like straightening out?
I agree about your rebinding, very neat. So, spinning off to one side, when everything has become re-binded (lol I nearly said rebound*) then are we all bound up in a different, more firm, more imprisoned sense? Because it's true that the nature of a religion often trends over its existence from shall we say excitement to shall we say fossilisation?
Idries Shah had something to say about this sort of process.
Thanks very much for the spontaneous positivity!
Postmodernism legalized the will to power or natural selection through open boarders and soft on crime policy.
Modernism like the church imposed a set standard of civilization through reeducation.
Good to know it wasn’t a complete waste of time reading a thousand plateau