I really think that in a monastery you would focus a lot of your mental powers on political philosophy.

Let’s raise the question of what is the “first science”.

It’s not as simple as at first glance. Because the first understanding is that the first science would be the context all the other sciences take place in. But that begs the question of what science you’d participate in given that the first science allows for it.

The amount of people I expect to grasp this kind of thing is so non-existent. European and Jewish men, of the non-pleb type. Not many of those in the world. That itself could form a sort of religion.

Let’s just try to get a clear idea of the distinctions between the disciplines. When we talk about political philosophy we’re not talking about political science. And furthermore, I’m not thinking here of political science as it is taught in the university. Political science in my definition is the hegemonic political control-system that they have down to a science, as well as its interconnected axiomatic framework. Political philosophy on the other hand is the questioning of whether that IS in fact a true science on its axiomatic side. Whether they’re effective in their “science” is one thing, and whether the truths they operate with are really truths is another thing.

So let’s backtrack now, because this is a convoluted issue. Political science poses as the first science. Political philosophy questions whether it really is that, and thus some postulate political philosophy as first science instead.

Let’s put this itself into question now. Take again the example of what one would think about in a monastery, which implies ascetic world-denial.

The very concept of political science (in my sense of the term) eliminates political philosophy from the get-go, otherwise it wouldn’t be–or at least see itself as–a science. So I posit that political philosophy is one important thing to think about in a monastery setting. The question I’m bringing up here though is it thee most important thing?

Let’s just think concretely about this for a second. The pluto-demos will probably burn your monastery down if you venture away from their political “science”.

The point I’m trying to make here is that there are two sides to what you’d ideally be thinking about in such a place. That is to say, political philosophy AND something else. So again, it isn’t clear that political philosophy IS the first science, given that. Put differently, the only reason you’d be thinking about political philosophy is because you want to think about other things and aren’t allowed to due to the political science in place. Thus, political philosophy is not necessarily an end in itself, nor the first science.

Lots of people are probably confused, I’m just trying to say it as simply as possible. If you are living within a totalitarian state-apparatus the question is what would an ideal sanctuary look like. One answer is that the totalitarianism itself would be discussed there. That’s not enough. That’s actually meaningless. Because if you only do that then you’re not talking about the thing the totalitarianism prevents you from talking about in the first place.

Who knows what plane we’re on here. 99.999% of people seem to pretend the totalitarianism doesn’t exist and/or deliberately enforce it. These aren’t the kinds of people who want to live in a monastery and discuss these matters. These are the ones who invite Harvey Weinstein to fuck a Happy Meal into them everyday so they can vomit it out the other end for you to listen to. So to speak. Generic sellouts, jews’ slaves, you’re not new here.

I know I probably say the word too much, I don’t care, there isn’t a better word- this is a question of mysticism. Not being aware of “political science” and how it controls your life is what the Buddists call “samsara”. One step in enlightenment is questioning that, and that is called political philosophy. Whether you recoil at sounding pretentious or not, that’s the technical term for what it is. And the question here is whether there is a step of enlightenment beyond that. Put differently yet again, living within the horizon is one thing, talking about that horizon is another, and what you talk about when you are outside of that horizon is another still.

So you might be wondering, What do you talk about when you’re not living in the horizon and not talking about the horizon itself. To tell you the truth, I don’t even want to say it because I don’t think you’ll understand. I’d like to, I have before, it just seems futile to me now. I’m disillusioned about people’s capacities. I always used to scoff when I read some hermeticist saying that “knowledge is not for the vulgar”. That was a naive phase of mine, probably something to do with a remnant of equalism still lurking in my brain.

The subject here though is the idea of the “first science”, the one that precedes all the others. All I intend to point to at the moment is that knowing that political philosophy is the first science is only the first step, and that political philosophy is really a means to an end, i.e something secondary. In the monastery you talk political philosophy in order to clear the way for the real first science.

Political philosophy is only a weapon you use in order to give yourself the freedom to talk about something more primary.

This is one with the theme of what I’ve referred to as breaking the hermetic seal. Something that you should try to face is that things are a lot worse than you think they are. No one is going to be breaking that, everyone is guarding it instead. That is why it is so mesmerizing for freespirits to conclude that political philosophy is first science. Because next to no one even gets to THAT level. There IS a level beyond that, and it CONTAINS political philosophy. The real first science is a type of “double-kill” in that sense.

It’s funny that I’m thinking of what the real first science is, and that it can be stated using only one word. And I refrain from saying it, because I know how profane this place is. The internet is a wasteland. Sorry to kill your dream if it isn’t dead already. There’s nothing here… To sound crude, you might as well settle for imbeciles and dumb cunts in your life. Because if the internet cannot even offer an alternative to those then real-life definitely isn’t going to. Lower your standards, there aren’t “beings of light” in the world.

At least from the “monastery perspective”. Any kind of light you recognize is almost always a lackey of the “political science” I am talking about. That is to say, they are darkness deceiving you that they are light if they do not even break the hermetic seal known as political philosophy. And again, political philosophy itself is not even first science. That’s just the world we live in I guess, I don’t like it either.

“So why don’t you just say what the first science is then?” Look at where you’re asking me that. This is a profane setting, this is not a “monastery”. Brick and mortar monasteries themselves do not break that hermetic seal either so they’re not even true monasteries. This is where the west is. This is why we’re still at the political philosophy stage among a minority. That’s how far away the divine is from being able to exist in this world. If you are not off the reservation it is so much worse than you could possibly imagine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: