I try to be a good, dialectical Greek and visit Jerusalem, seeing that a book on the figure connecting the Besht and the founder of Chabad recently dropped, and that doesn’t really fit my instincts, so I try to find some middle-middle-ground and click the Jew Shestov’s book titled Athens and Jerusalem, and that doesn’t really speak to me either, so I’m back to Heidegger’s book on Heraclitus
Today, we know of approximately one hundred and thirty fragments. Should they be laid out only in a muddled heap, or can they be ordered? Given this number—and, above all, given the importance of the content of many of the fragments—the hope arises to assemble the whole again from out of the remaining ruins, as with the broken shards of a Greek bowl or vase.
How did they do it? Those Greeks, without our comforts and technologies and infrastructure? Not only in their logos but in their mythos as well there is a peering into the heart of Being.
Do you think the Chinese will try to put this vase back together? It will probably be another eclipse of the Greeks with them.
Sometimes I try to imagine what an actual Greek person must feel when reading these things about them. They’re the true supremacists of world-history, if you ask me. Most people only know them for their gyros. And their old architecture, which is vague. There’s something quaint about the writings of the Kabbalists in comparison to theirs. It’s as if the Jews remained within the Olympian religion and never experienced the Socratic paradigm-shift. (Their sephirot are like the Olympic gods.) It’s an excessive piety that lapses into egotism. “Our revelation was true, why do you think you’re OUR slaves now?” Yes, the demiurge tells itself that. Demiurge-truth and truth are two different things. As long as you win it doesn’t matter if you’re “good” or not. You can be the judge of that. If someone who isn’t good wins I don’t know if anyone wins. I feel Yahweh’s gaze from the clouds looking down at me and he looks like a primate. Just a totally normal thing a non-mystical person feels in their life.
I say these things in the demiurge’s realm and that’s like talking to the demos of Athens.
So moving on to playing a detached scholar- this is a good question
in which of the one hundred and thirty fragments can the inner core of what this thinker thinks be seen? … from where do we grasp the guiding directive for the determination of the sequence of the fragments?
Heraclitus is important to know because he is one of the main strains of thought that is scrutinized in Plato’s late trilogy from earlier.
I always have the intuition that most of my readers don’t care what I have to say because the only thing they care about is surrounding and engulfing me in their nigger mud for revealing their ploys. It is a sacred encounter, between myself and these apes.
“I know who I am! I might even be a VEGETABLE!” No, that’s nonsense. If you learn from the Greeks you won’t be that way.
If you were to face the apes what would you tell them? “Hate whitie”? Real effective strategy. Hence you’re part of the subhuman “clump” too. Isn’t it obvious the left really knows what it’s doing? My theory is that for the most part they are genetic types that have only been literate for a couple generations. Before that they were brainless cogs in an infrastructure designed by their betters. And they remain brainless, they are just able to articulate that brainlessness now.
Having a plebeian capacity for cognition, all they can really grasp is vengeance toward reminders of what they are, and the motivation to pull people even lower than them up into the crumbling infrastructure they didn’t create and couldn’t create.
It doesn’t matter if you see the skin of a face, or even make-up- what is behind it is dirt. The generic “look” of a “person” hides that there is a type of waste hidden behind it. With brown-skins this is easier to tell, with the lighter ones it’s more deceptive. It’s a nigger. That is, a being born with no soul that wants to remove the soul from all the world.
All they can do is make excuses for themselves, because after all, if we are correct that it is a type of soulless animal we are speaking of, could you expect it to do anything besides make excuses?
This isn’t something that will be decided by a vote, by its very nature. The central aim is to remove the cunning-caste of ape from power. Words do not convince apes. Only violence will be effective. Otherwise you willingly volunteer to hand the world over to subhumans.
“Jews are so good though, just look at their… nuclear bomb… and their… secret teachings they remain secretive about to this day. Can’t you see they’re good?” They let animals believe they’re humans (themselves included), that’s why you think they’re good. That’s an odd definition of “good” I’d have to hear you justify, and I know you won’t, because you can’t. Continuing to act like a jewnigger is all you’re capable of.
Ahhh I wish I could hear what my fellow “Greeks” think of this outside of political constraint
Next to the facile prattle of Cicero stands the ‘speculative’ ground of Hegel. But the one is just as untrue as the other. Hegel’s explanation for the obscurity of Heraclitus is untrue because it is un-Greek, and also because it veils the essence of inceptual thinking.
I’m too living-on-an-island-alone-for-years for that at this point. They just don’t care.. Humanity is already dead, we are living during another plebeian mud-eclipse.
Listening to Bach while reading this Heidegger course and it seems suitable.
if Hegel and Nietzsche (though the latter in a modified way) see Heraclitus as their great precursor and ancestor, then a historical blindness occurs [ereignet] here within the nineteenth century (a century of historiography), the outermost ripples of which have still not dissipated and whose still prevalent ground is to be found all the way back at the inception of Occidental thinking.
This is only two of the 40 today that we’ve looked at (briefly in each case). Can you understand the Sophist without understanding Heraclitus? Can you understand Heraclitus without Heidegger’s historiography of German idealism and its later offshoots?