La Mort

Apres La Vie, La Mort. Dédié a mon amour, James Trevor Cladingbowl. May they rest in peace.

[jnpwt]

The necessary Union of Taoism and Anarchy

Refers to:

-Tao Te Ching by Laozi

-Adam Curtis' BBC Anarchist propaganda

-Past Experiences when at one with the Tao/at True Anarchism (not longer the case)

If you watch Adam Curtis' "Can't Get You Out Of My Head" an emphasis is made on certain individuals, contrasting them with the emotional state of their societies at the time. These individuals share many things, the most common being their fight against Power Structures. The most interesting, which only takes into account a set few of the individuals chosen to be observed, are those whose Ego seems to be immense. The case of Jiang Qing is the most fascinating in how clear the demarcation between the Rise and Fall are.

Jiang Qing wanted to be the best actress in 1930s New China, post Qing collapse. Her abilities to act were excellent, but she came across a better actress, Li Lili, who upstaged her in the production of "Bloodshed on Wolf Mountain". The Director chose Li over Jiang. The Power Structure of cinema at the time got in the way of Jiang. Therefore she left, and found herself allied with the most determined Revolutionary in China at the time. Revolutionaries whose purpose was to destroy Power. Jiang and Mao were a glamourous couple, together, they were undefeatable and could not be stopped. All the Chinese Communists were enthralled, and for all the flaws of the couple, they were doing their best as Revolutionaries. Then, a man more powerful but more cynical, Stalin, split the couple on behalf of a jealous few within the existing Communists. This marked the end of the inspiring couple, and both fell into cycles of despair, jealousy and all sorts of negative emotions, while retaining their skills in Charisma. Such Charisma ensured Mao could make the mistake of the Great Leap Forward, and Jiang's Charisma enabled the CCP to act out its Cultural Revolution. All traceable back to a moment where the USSR, a more powerful nation, interfered with the affairs of a couple who were truly glorious.

The pattern of proud, inspired individuals or couples throughout history, excelling in their field and encouraging others to join their revolutionary cause, whether in arts or politics, is made extremely clear by Curtis. Fortunately, the details of when the Power Structure interfered and made these individuals fall from their heights is left in so the viewer can connect the dots. One may look back at the legacies of Political Revolutionaries such as Mao and Lenin, as well as Artistic Revolutionaries such as John Lennon or Eduard Limonov, and be able to see them as good people until a certain point in time. The point in time when a pre-existing Power Structure was unable to be broken, as they are not all connected directly. It takes effort to convert Political Power to Economic Power (the effort of corruption), and therefore one could imagine a pair of structures, where the biggest one (nowadays economic power) dominates the other, and therefore dominates those who try to destroy such power structure. Money Corrupts even the most ardent geniuses, whether they be a genius in art, politics, crowd charisma, or humour (one can realise that these strengths are one and the same, but applied to different contexts).

And now we get to Taoism. Not the entirety of it, simply the original text of the Tao Te Ching by Laozi, who is attempting to describe their current state of "Enlightenment" with the language at hand. When wanting to completely understand the concept of reaching either Enlightenment, Nirvana, monotheistic Salvation, the original Brahmin, the Ubermensch, or in this case, Tao, one must also take into account the language such texts were written in. Latin became crucial due to the Bible, Arabic from the Koran, and of course Mandarin, enabled by the works of Laozi and Confucius, who "wrote down" what sages were sharing verbally, making history of tradition. The Tao Te Ching makes many references to different kind of ideas regarding morality, morality which the sages at the time spent much time understanding. Reaching Tao is an attempt to transcend morality by placing oneself in the shoes of all, not just all people, but all things, as the Tao is all.

Quote drop:

-Being and non-being produce each other.

-> everything is relative

-If you overvalue possessions, people will begin to steal.

-> unnecessary pride causes jealous envy

-The Tao is like an empty container

->reaching Tao frees one of desires that are to be considered sins

-Heaven and Earth are impartial

-> there is NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY OF ACTION

-The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist. The next best is a leader who is loved and praised.

-> Goebbels and Hitler (who shared a hatred of the Elite which they foolishly believed to be entirely composed of Jews, a foolish take that became evil action)

or

-> Mao Zedong and Jiang Qing (Mao was loved, but Jiang aided in the background, leading her to not be seen as "valuable" by the other communists, especially Stalin)

or

-> Eduard Limonov and Yelena Shchapova (allied in the arts until Yelena switched to sucking up for money, leaving Limonov seething against money and become anti-capitalist radical, but no longer an inspired poet)

-If a ruler abides by its principles, then their people will willingly follow. Heaven would then reign on earth, like sweet rain falling on paradise. People would have no need for laws, because the law would be written on their hearts

->The best leaders of any particular Power Structure are those that have reached Tao, due to their inability to be corrupted

-The Tao of Heaven nourishes by not forcing. The Tao of the Wise person acts by not competing.

-> The most interesting quote, as at no other point in the text was the detail that two forms of Tao exist.

end of Quote Drop

This last distinction is the most important, as we can pivot off this to understand the successes of Monotheistic Philosophy and Eastern Philosophy. The term Monotheistic Philosophy is used because an absolute conviction that a God exists can be used for a person to reach a form of Tao. A Tao where one is nourished by not forcing, emotionally nourished knowing that this anthropomorphized version of morality will give them Heaven. The catch is, God doesn't exist. Christ did. He had reached a form of Tao where one could nourish the confusion of others by not forcing. That is until the Power Structure of the Roman Empire got in the way.

Christ was an early Anarchist. He wanted to give the people around him a morality that superseded the laws of the Romans, who themselves simply applied what made the most sense to them, as Urban Dwellers with cool lore. In the stead of Christ, were born something strange, unexpected. Martyrs. They wouldn't teach morality, but apply it, in whatever way they knew possible, which when confronted with the unknown, would fail. Martyrs made great tales for the Bible and for the effort of conversion, but also inspired Crusaders to go on a pilgrimage, one that necessitated bloodshed due to the politics of the time (another issue of Power, but one too complex to flesh out here). Martyrs and Crusaders were trying to reach a different form of Enlightenment, where you would give yourself up to another person, a brave, proud individual who would fight against evil, you would be nourished for purpose by not forcing away the teachings of another, one more wise.

Europe re-learnt this lesson as they grew sick and tired of incompetent leadership. France begun the tradition of Western Anarchism, in the forms of democracy, unions and strikes. Robespierre inspired a nation to get rid of not just the King, but a corrupt and self-serving court. Unfortunately, bloodlust once unleashed cannot be stopped. Robespierre did not try to describe morality, as all the efforts of French Intellectuals at the time could only go as far as to say "I think, therefore I am", without anything practical. Such philosophies were philosophies of destroying Power Structures, but not one of finding good leaders. And then a drunk neuro-divergent German, pissed off at the control money had over his life and his marriage, wrote a Manifesto. One that would inspire a century of Revolutions, a century of Great Leaders, Enlightened Leaders. And yet, none managed to sustain the connection between the Tao of Heaven and the Tao of the Wise due to Power Structures splitting such individuals up. Communism for Morality, the Morality of all being equal in the eyes of Power, or whatever structure we delegate resource management to. Anarchy as a system to allow flexible changes of leadership, so that those who have reached the Tao can rise as far up as they are required to.

TO BE NOTED: in some cases ignorance holds power over an individual, this need not exist thanks to the Internet.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

-criticize my work. It sucks, my writing style was developed independently of any criticism. write something better

-encourage me to write more

-reach Tao, through meditation with moral mantras (the Tao Te Ching has many useful mantras to be used)

-be moral, but understand that without amorality, there is no morality. pity, then forgive those that are currently amoral, and encourage them to be more moral. this applies to yourself too. what is morality? just guess lmao no one rly knows, as long as you keep doing your best relative to your limitations (including the limitation of your current position relative to whatever power structure stops you from doing what you REALLY want)

[jnpwt]

To defeat the Power Devil

#caution, I have not read all of the manga, I am only drawing from the first 9 episodes of the anime for now, but there is enough there to draw conclusions on how to defeat the Power Devil. Also spoilers for the first 9 eps.

Denji

He wants to live. We all do. Sometimes it takes a loved one to shun this desire to shock ourselves into the realization of love of life. Of Life. And when a bond is lost, a new one can be formed, with whoever or whatever, for preconceived biases need not exist. Denji's bond with Pochita, one formed after the loss of his previous bond, started as he himself was aware of another's desire to live, and aided him to realize his own desire. His Want. And through the careful and loving cultivation of such bond, Denji got what he wanted, though at great cost. Yet does Denji despair? After losing another loved one, one so cute and huggable? No, because their goals align, they are together and to mourn when a part of Pochita still resides within Denji is not what Pochita would desire. Denji gets his normal life, his jam on toast, and then asks himself: What next? What else did I want? To squeeze a boob? To go on a date? To form a new bond, the strongest bond, one of love? He tackles each problem one at a time, the easiest first. By believing in Power, and still siding by her despite her apparent betrayal (a simple exchange of one life that she sees more value in for another she sees slightly less value in). Satisfied, he squeezes her boobs.

To climb a mountain, a goal one sets for themselves. At the top, after the exhilaration, the struggle and the success, a beautiful view reveals itself. One part of this view is a taller mountain, a bigger challenge. It does not downplay the struggle so far, but inspires for even greater growth, higher goals, another meaning to one's life. Makima is that taller mountain.

Makima

The greatest goal, to kill the Gun Devil. A goal that many in humanity strive for, and the rest encourage and aid. Makima embodies such will, and certainly has the means to achieve such goal. And yet, she recognizes there is something missing, something she immediately recognizes in Denji. You have to be insane to kill the Gun Devil, because what was once counted as insane, becomes sane as it is eventually proven to be possible. Using all the tools she has (one of them being her body) as well as the authority she commands as part of Public Safety, the mountain is scaled, little by little. Makima is chosen, and trusted to kill the Gun Devil, and she fulfills this role to the best of her ability. She is trusted by her teammates, and when she can't gain trust in the typical sense, encouragements through other means are never off the table. One may question such means, but do the ends justify the means?

The Power Devil

Assume n* devils. From such starting point, humanity desires to eliminate all devils. From n* devils, the goal is 0 devils. There are two approaches. Work from the current number of n* devils and eliminate them one by one, as the Public Safety Bureau does. Denji, and the rest of his team are very efficient at this task. There is another perspective. To get to 0 devils, beforehand there must be 1 devil. And before that, 2 devils. All the way up to the current number of devils. Fight fire with fire, they say, and when there is only one flame remaining, a small dousing of water suffices. Makima trusts herself to douse this final flame when necessary. You have to trust your future self, just as one trusts their past and present self. Is the Gun Devil the final Devil? I have not reached that far in the story, but the previously defined plan remains clear.

Devils aren't real, or not in the very literal and anthropomorphized manner of the show. What is Real is hard to be sure of, but humans can make very well educated guesses, aided by the tools of epistemology and our own fact of existence. The Power Devil of the Perceived World, the shadows on the wall of the cave, makes contracts with individuals to boost their position. Little do these individuals know is of the corrupting nature of the Power Devil. What giveths also takeths away. The cost becomes too heavy for a single individual to handle, and the Power Devil always seems to grow stronger. Must it be defeated, or simply recycled, repurposed, reshaped to fit our needs? The need, or rather want, to get to zero devils. The want of all of humanity.

As a final note, imagine a completely centralized society. One where all power is in the hands of one human. This human, call them what you will, can do whatever they want. They embody the Power Devil, and there are no other Devils that can stand in their way. What do they want? Power? They want to get to 0 devils. And they trusted themselves, their goal, the goal of getting to Zero, the tallest mountain scaled by the most powerful climber. The human embodiment Power Devil becomes the martyr for the purpose of destroying the Power Devil. The Power Human. They have to die for our sins.

Or do they?

[jnpwt]

The Genius of Lesser Hippias

Been reading this pdf:

And as well as Plato's writings, there are introductions and appendices by Dr Elwany. The Doctor assesses the genuineness of the works, and has found some more and some less genuine works, never being certain where the line is. In the end, most works are seen to be genuine, but a couple stand out for the uncertainty of their "real-ness". One of such works is Lesser Hippias.

Lesser Hippias is a dialogue that begins by comparing Achilles to Odysseus. As with Ancient Athenians, valour and nobility are prized, such values constantly criticized by Socrates and other philosophers. Odysseus is perceived as "wily" by Hippias, whereas Socrates retorts that Achilles is similarly, if not more "wily". Courage and similar values are pushed aside, only implied through the "courage" of honesty by Hippias. The point becomes that Odysseus, who is in control of his wile, his cunning and his ability to lie is no worse, if not better than Achilles who lies involuntarily. During this process, both dialoguers seem to be forgetting details of Homer's works and being reminded by the other, which itself is indicative of the "Philosopher's mode-de-vie" that has come to defined Socrates. Socrates emphasizes his lack of knowledge, and is willing to accept his faults, but still stands by his point that intentional lying is better than unintentional lies. Intentionally doing something ill is a sign of control over such domain, even if the current action itself suggests the opposite. Such control is implied in the context of "intentional" rather than the act itself.

The character of Deishuu Kaiki, other than being best girl, provides a sobering perspective in the anime, manga and light novel series Monogatari. Past the blatant debauchery, some interesting ideas are expressed. One of them, Kaiki's idea, and seemingly part of his core philosophy and defines his actions, is the following: "The fake is of far greater value. In its deliberate attempt to be real, it’s more real than the real thing." . In an attempt to mimic the Real, a fake expresses an understanding of such Real, despite the intention to create a fake. Kaiki is proud of his fakeness, his conman tricks, and even if not seeing the value in the real is itself a flaw, seeing the value in the fake is certainly an idea that does not resonate well emotionally. A fake is fake, if one is to search or desire something real, how is a fake sufficient? Such difficulty in accepting a fake is a flaw not an emotional or intellectual flaw, but shows that most modern culture's do not fully comprehend the fake, and are have inadequate definitions of what it is to be "fake".

Any enthusiast of knowledge and wielder of epistemology will search for the real. They may find fakes along the way, and be dissatisfied. The fake is throw out, rejected, lost, and seen as pure corruption. This instinct is of use when acquiring things of value, such as food in nature, or more abstractly, such as looking for "real" shelter rather than a fake shelter that is of too poor quality to act as a shelter. Very much a pre-civilization instinct. Specifically, pre-art. That is because art itself is the embodiment of the fake. It attempts to mimic a concept, real or imagined, but can never fully be that concept. Art is cannot be a completely novel experience, but a combination of the new and the old, the known and the unknown. A known that is copied, and unknown that is discovered. To reject the fake is to reject art, and while the nature of art is too long to discuss here, it seems that some human instincts, society's respect for art, is hypocritical when this same society rejects the Fake.

Without the Real, there is no Fake. Without the Fake, the Real cannot be appreciated. The creation of the fake does not only demonstrate understanding of the real, and therefore can teach the observer about the real, but also empowers the Real, shows it some respect through its existence. The Real has to be observed, as does anything, and a creation of a fake is a form of permanent admittance of observation. The Real has been observed, and now here is a fake. A form of art.

Doctor Elwany's attempt to find all "genuine" works of Plato necessitates a struggle, a challenge, a feat, one of differentiating the genuine from the non-genuine. A struggle that has been commented on by a wily impostor, thousands of years beforehand in the dialogue of the Lesser Hippias. Such a dialogue is unable to present a dominating, confident Socrates who excels in discussion and demonstrates the foolishness of the opponent. Instead a hesitant "Socrates" tries his best to justify why lies have more value when they are made knowingly. A liar covering for themselves by means of creating a Fake, convincing enough to not be rejected but not quite convincing enough to escape scrutiny. A Fake that through its mere existence respects Socrates' philosophy by emphasis on knowledge, justifies its own existence as well as it can considering the apparent limitations of the writer's philosophical ability, and sows confusion 2 whole millennia down the line, driving some to the action and process of understanding the difference between genuine and fake works of Plato and Socrates. This Fake, despite its inconclusive result, has immense value in existence.

Of course it has been assumed that this essay is Fake, not for any reasons drawn from analysis, but rather by considering the context, the full picture, the fact that this work may be one of the first "Meta" works of art. And even if it isn't, the possibility of the Fake has such power over the Real to make anyone question the credibility of this essay. The former argument is preferred by this writer, for simply sentimental reasons.

In the end, this work is just as Socratic as any other. It may or may not be a genuine dialogue by Socrates and Hippias, but this Socrates still retains the same moral and philosophical essence as in any other dialogue. If the Socrates of this dialogue were to read into this Real/Fake dilemma today, he would conclude that it would be better if such dialogue were faked, as it has been intentionally faked rather than unintentionally misled the future readers into doubting its genuine nature. And that, my friend, is the beautiful irony of Lesser Hippias.

[jnpwt]

Modern Sophistry

"Me you have sentenced because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives". Whether the accuser is a philosopher, whistleblower or journalist, whose roles involve active criticism of the state, one cannot ignore the hypocrisy. Though progress has been made in the name of "demos kratos", progress which appears obvious but is harder to quantify and therefore to link with a particular process, such progress was undeniably influenced by reason and logic. The Pride of the Ancient Athenians, and of future institutions. Institutions such as Islam during its Golden Age of Learning, the Christian Church until the invention of printing, and now modern academia within capitalism. And in each case, the clarity of how conditional this reason and logic is exposed.

Learning proves to be the key to progress and despite this fact, one known since the days of Ancient Athens, learning is shelved when the status quo becomes more convenient to those setting the conditions that permit learning. "Look to the state before [one] looks to the interests of the state". The state, guide of society and morality, is to be criticized. And this criticism does not limit itself to speech. Democracy is an attempt to ensure this state self-criticizes, but the conditions of this self-criticism is set by such state. Active criticism, which is when an act goes against the rules (and implied morality) set by such state, is punished. A secular state, the detachment from religious morality by a society, cannot judge one's religious choice. Socrates would not have been put to court in this era. However as freedoms are "handed" out, many more remain locked away, justified by the fact that the state is more knowledgeable of morality than any individual. All the legislators, representatives, bureaucrats, their combined knowledge supersedes the rest of society. Even if this is true, for just one moment, it would be equivalent to giving a turtle a small head start against a hare. The hare (the whole of a society's ability to acquire knowledge) beats the turtle (state that knows more know, but is limited in its ability to acquire and process knowledge into morality).

What is society carried the turtle? Illegal. Morally incorrect by certain objective standards, it would be said. The hare outpaces the turtle, and the gap widens. Members of a society grow increasingly critical of such state, but may only express this verbally. Generations are to be waited out, their death anticipated so new, more informed generations can take their place and use their knowledge. In an era of instant media, this is too slow. It may have been acceptable in the past with newspapers or books as the most popular medium for learning. In the 21st century, the state is seen for all its flaws, for the inability of leaders to act, let alone the control oligarchs exert over the state. It is not so much the rate of mistakes that is decried, but the rate of avoidable errors with the shared knowledge of our society. To justify the flaws, mistakes and errors, to brush off criticism, sophistry is necessary. That is why just as Athenian Philosophers may have been at odds with a state who thought their Gods could tell them everything, youth who learn from the light-speed communication that is the Internet end up resenting the incompetence by those responsible of our shared future. Incompetence by Modern Sophists.

[jnpwt]

I am looking for Man

I am looking for a man. A classic line, once put in context. The context is not just the Life of Diogenes, or even the scene where he walks around with a lamp, but the language and the fact that this information is second hand knowledge from historians. Third hand if you include meaning lost in translation. Some say Diogenes was "Looking for a honourable man". With each interpretation comes additional contextual baggage, such as the intention of the one doing the re-interpretation. In reality, one can never know what was originally going through Diogenes' mind, and through this undeniably important difficulty in interpretation, not just one but many ideologies can be derived.

Diogenes is more than just a "Dog". Diogenes is arguably the first Trickster. And the ideology of the Trickster is far more comprehensive and satisfying than the Cynic. The Trickster has a long history of interaction and indirect commentary on the society such Trickster inhibits. Diogenes acted as Cynic. Future Trickster's need not follow Diogenes' exact mantra or life choices, while still holding to their core the same purpose. A purpose of tomfoolery. At whose expense?

The Trickster's enemy is society, particularly its current form. Trickster's need not exist in Utopia. That is why their continued existence still haunts us to this day, whether as pop culture character The Joker, video-game reinterpretation of Jung's work as Joker, or one of those Persona's that are acted out whenever a trollface is posted online. And just as the Cynics have done, why not retroactively apply such ideology?

Another trickster is Robin Hood. Unlike Diogenes, Robin Hood embodies the Trickster but turns it into a direct threat to the artificial and centralized order of Society. Whether Feudal or Capitalistic, redistribution of wealth is a form of trickery. This is a natural continuation of the "tamer" forms of the Trickster. This was in fact Diogenes' origin story. To be told to deface value, value which no matter the historical context, is controlled by the majority holders. Scale matters. The laws in place that blocked Diogenes to break down this monopoly on value forced him to change culture before he could change society. The Trickster plays tricks, for the sake of amusement as thinly veiled criticisms of current culture and indirectly, society.

"I am looking for Man". I could not find the original untranslated version of this quote, though "honest man" may have been closer to reality and more fitting to the context. Despite this, claiming to be looking for an "honest man" and then finding none is a statement in itself. Looking for Man and not finding Man is much more than a statement. It is a philosophy. Diogenes could never find Man, because Man had not embraced the Trickster yet, for it saw no use. And Man rejected Diogenes. This can be undone.

The ideology of Plato describes attempts by logic to find "the True Man", as well as many other True Things. It is a fruitless task, as objective value is of no importance. Diogenes searched for Man, so that with the knowledge of what Man was, he could fulfill his original Purpose. Not just to deface currency, but to devalue what was deemed valuable. And whose "value" as deemed to be the most important? That of Man. Mankind. With the knowledge of today, we can extend this to Life. Diogenes can keep searching for a man, an honest man or Man, but will find many of the former, none of the latter and of an honest man? That would be to concede morality. To concede value. Such an imaginably important and difficult challenge was not to be solved yet. It may never be solved. Though through the process of finding honesty, describing Man, Life, and using this description to find an honest man, perhaps the individuals of this society can make itself a little more honest. And then apply this honesty to society, and do what Diogenes could not begin. To devalue value, just to replace it with a more appropriate one. The Value of the Trickster.