Category Archives: Super Sanity/White Lodge/Übermensch

Nachbemerkung zu Büchner vs Goethe

Posted on by

“I was within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.“

F. Scott Fitzgerald

Das Universalgenie ist nicht notwendigerweise erleuchtet, und die Erleuchtete nicht notwendigerweise künstlerisch oder wissenschaftlich. Beides sind eher seltene Erscheinungen, und dass beides in einer (oder einem) zusammentrifft, eher noch seltener. Erleuchtet sein bedeutet: der Geist ist der offene Raum, das Subjekt verfügt über volle Manövrierfähigkeit und Navigationsfähigkeit über den offenen Raum, ist eins mit den Dingen, die Fähigkeit zur mentalen Rotation ist maximiert; außerdem kann man es mit Worten nicht ganz genau beschreiben oder definieren. Man erkennt es, wenn man es sieht. Erleuchtet sein ist Transzendenz, das Durchstoßen der materialen Hyle. Allerdings führt der (oder die) Erleuchtete in seinem Geist, der dem offenen Raum gleicht, nicht notwendigerweise analytische  bzw. wissenschaftliche oder künstlerische oder philosophische, vielleicht auch nicht mal explizite moralische Operationen durch. Erleuchtung ist ein anderer Zustand, der sich vom fragmentierten Normalbewusstsein unterscheidet. Er bezieht sich nicht auf die wissenschaftliche Physik und (eigentlich) auch nicht auf die Metaphysik (sondern er ist vor- wie meta-metaphysisch). Allerdings wird zumindest die Metaphysik viel interessanter, wenn sie aus einem Zustand der Erleuchtetheit betrieben wird. Goethe war Universalmensch und man sieht da eine scheinbar schön abgerundete Aura von großem Radius, wenn man (als Erleuchteter zumindest) auf ihn blickt. Allerdings stand er immer nur an der Schwelle zur Transzendenz. Weder seine Dichtung noch seine Wahrheit sind positiv entrückt und machen höhere Dimensionen (irgendwie) sichtbar. Aufgrund seiner extremen Wahrnehmungs- und Erlebnisfähigkeit ist Dichtung und Wahrheit so angefüllt mit Weltwahrnehmung, dass es mir noch gar nie gelungen ist, sie zu lesen. Die geistige und sprachliche Flexibilität des früh verstorbenen (daher auch nicht gut definitiv beurteilbaren) Büchner hatte Goethe aber nicht! Dessen Lenz ist eine Über-Dichtung und Über-Wahrheit hinsichtlich der Weltwahrnehmung und, anzunehmenderweise, auf seinen dreißig Seiten reichhaltiger und ungewöhnlicher als die vielen hundert Seiten von Dichtung und Wahrheit. Einfach, weil Büchner die Welt offenbar von einem deutlich höheren Blickwinkel aus betrachtet, als Goethe, von einem höheren Niveau der Analyse und der Integration von Wahrnehmung und von Wissen. Panoramic ability hat ein Engländer dem Goethe beschieden, wofür Goethe sich geschmeichelt schön zu bedanken wusste. Allerdings ist auch das Panorama, wenngleich nichts Fragmentiertes oder Segmentiertes, was Begrenztes. Im Lenz kommt zum Vorschein, was ich als das Einheits-Bewusstsein bezeichne. Eine vollständige, intensive, einheitliche Erfahrung des gesamten Wirklichkeitsfeldes, auch hinsichtlich seiner Illusionen, wie Hinter- und Überwirklichkeiten, seiner Träume und seiner Potenziale; seiner Virtualität und seiner Aktualität. Der Geisteszustand des schurkischen Joker wird dann und wann als „Super-Sanity“ bezeichnet. „I see it all! The whole game! Ahahahahaha!“, sagt der Joker an einer Stelle. So eine Perspektive hat man bei Büchner. Büchner beherrscht auch alle Dialekte innerhalb der „stammelnden Mannigfaltigkeit der Welt“ (F. Hebbel) – und zwar besser als Goethe, wenn es um die Sprache der niederen Schichten im Faust geht – er durchdringt sie intensiv und spiritualisiert sie (macht also eine „Kunstsprache“ aus ihnen, die allerdings gänzlich ungekünstelt ist). Jetzt ist es vielleicht seltsam, dass man einen symbolträchtigen Psychopathen wie den Joker hernimmt als Vorbild für eine bessere Wahrnehmung, die es anzustreben gilt – aber das Charisma des Joker liegt darin, dass er eine vollständig autonome, aus sich selbst heraus gebärende und von außen nicht beeinflussbare, allerdings scheinbar massiv unter ihren Eindrücken stehende und diese verarbeitende Figur ist. Lenz ist zwar auch verrückt, aber er navigiert, während die Wogen der Wirklichkeitswahrnehmung auf und nieder gehen, durch diese Wirklichkeit; er selbst einmal größer als das All wird, dann wieder gegenüber dem All zu einem winzigen Punkt zusammenschrumpft u. dergl. mehr. Der Geist von Büchner ist ohne Weiteres erleuchtet. Mich interessiert die Möglichkeit bzw. das eventuelle Vorhandensein der Möglichkeit, ohne Kasteiungen und Übungen in Zen-Koan den Zustand der Erleuchtung zu erreichen, und zwar eben nur, eigentlich, über das Studium der Wissenschaft bzw. der wissenschaftlichen Weltwahrnehmung. Das Studium des Koan hat etwas wissenschaftliches ja an sich, da es versucht, das Paradoxe zu begreifen, und damit die Facetten, die Mannigfaltigkeit, das ständige Wechseln der Perspektive zwischen Motiv und Hintergrund. Ein Geist, der das vollständig beherrscht, besitzt Satori. Er ist vollständig flexibel. Das Erreichen von Erleuchtung, Satori, des Einheits-Bewusstseins bedeutet das Durchstoßen der materialen Hyle der Dinge wie der Konzepte über die Dinge – und dieses Durchstoßen erfolgt,  mit Leibniz gesprochen, über die Reflexion der Reflexion, also über das absolute Denken. Zunehmende Intelligenz bedeutet auch, dass komplexe, systemisch zu begreifende Inhalte wie Wissenschaft oder Philosophie für einen einfach werden, das (scheinbar) Einfache, wie alltägliches Verhalten der Menschen, Sittlichkeit oder Politik, in der Wahrnehmung des Intelligenten zunehmend komplex erscheinen (er bisweilen eine Komplexität an ihnen wahrnimmt oder in ihnen vermutet, die gar nicht besteht). Das Komplexe wird für den (wirklich) Intelligenten einfach, das Einfache komplex. Ich habe gesagt, das Einheits-Bewusstsein bedeutet eine demokratische Wahrnehmung aller Dinge (bei gleichzeitigem Vorhandensein der Möglichkeit ihrer analytischen Unterscheidung und Trennung). Das ist wahrscheinlich so, weil auf der Ebene des Einheits-Bewusstseins alles gleich einfach und gleich komplex geworden ist. Es gibt nichts wirklich Gescheites und nichts wirklich Dummes mehr. Das Komplexe wird einfach und das Einfache komplex. Das ergibt, inmitten dieser Homogenität freilich auch immer wieder eine ungewöhnliche Perspektive, denn es bedeutet auch, dass man, gleichsam mit einem Auge wie mit einem Teleskop in die Welt blickt, und mit einem anderen wie mit einem Mikroskop (wenn man so will, hat man hier die Gleichzeitigkeit von analytischem und synthetischem Geist). Ständig steigt irgendwas auf, und fällt irgendwas ab. Flächen erheben sich, Plateaus senken sich. Dynamische Geysire brechen aus. Es ist somit eine wabernde Homogenität (die freilich teilweise durchaus unheimlich sein kann – wie es aber eben die Realität an sich ist). Diese wabernde Realität bzw. der Eingelassenheit des Subjektes in die objektive Welt hat man im Lenz. Einen solchen Geist – den des Einheits-Bewusstseins – hatte der Büchner, der sehr wissenschaftlich war. Bei Goethe hat man immer wieder Figuren – den Faust, den Werther, den Tasso – die sich in der Wirklichkeit auf erstaunliche Weise nicht zurechtfinden, und in eigentümlicher Disharmonie mit ihr leben (oder eben sterben). Sie sind neurotisch; als der krankhafte Ausdruck des normalen, fragmentierten Bewusstseins (Lenz und der Joker sind psychotisch, als der krankhafte Ausdruck des Einheits-Bewusstseins). Das Einheits-Bewusstsein hingegen bedeutet ewigen und absoluten Frieden, da man in der Überwirklichkeit angelangt ist, und die Welt beherrscht. Man sieht zwar das Chaos, vor allem aber unglaublich robuste, unzerstörbare Verstrebungen und Architekturen – das ist der Blick auf die Ewigkeit und das Absolute – und das ist der Blick auf den eigenen, ewig gewordenen transzendenten Geist. Das ist das Konx Om Pax, sind die elysischen Felder. Schau, wie autonom der Träger des Einheits-Bewusstseins geworden ist (oder eben die Trägerin)! Sie sind etwas ganz anderes als die immer wieder grotesken Figuren von Goethe. Das Einheits-Bewusstsein steht über aller Welt und ist stärker als alle Welt. Es ist unsterblich und ewig.

Jetzt ist es nun allerdings nicht so, dass das das letzte Kapitel von der Geschichte der Welt wäre. Das Einheits-Bewusstsein steht über aller Welt und ist stärker als alle Welt. Es ist unsterblich und ewig. Das heißt nun aber nicht, dass es in der Welt herrscht und irgendeine Macht haben muss. Das Einheits-Bewusstsein ist gut, und mit den Worten von Bhagwan, hat der Träger des Einheits-Bewusstseins den Zustand des ewigen Werdens (also des produktiven, allerdings auch gehetzten Zustand des entwicklungsfähigen Menschen) unter sich gelassen, und ist in einem unerschütterlichen Sein angelangt – „der Alptraum ist zu Ende“. Das Ego, das die Perspektive verzerrt und verengt, ist abgefallen – da ist eben nur mehr der offene Raum. Allerdings ist das eine eben das Bewusstsein, das andere ist das Sein, und wie Goethes Freund Schiller (im Wallenstein) dichtet:

Eng ist die Welt, und das Gehirn ist weit

Leicht beieinander wohnen die Gedanken,

Doch hart im Raume stoßen sich die Sachen

Da ist es nun allerdings doch so, dass das großartige Einheits-Bewusstsein, das die elysischen Felder sieht, in Wahrheit auf eine kompartmentalisierte Wirklichkeit blickt und sich bezieht, und wenn man die spiritualisierte Perspektive wegrechnet, worüber sich alles an ihr als eine schöne, farbenprächtige Mannigfaltigkeit und Vielheit ausnimmt, eben auf eine vielfach unangenehme, heterogene bis einander feindselige Wirklichkeit, eine empirisch-sittliche Wirklichkeit, von der Goethe (in den Maximen und Reflexionen) sagt:

Die empirisch-sittliche Welt besteht größtenteils nur aus bösem Willen und Neid.

Im Wallenstein heißt es weiter:

Dem bösen Geist gehört die Erde, nicht

Dem Guten. Was die Göttlichen uns senden

Von oben, sind nur allgemeine Güter,

Ihr Licht erfreut, doch macht es keinen reich

Von den Reichen heißt es immer wieder, ihr Leben sei dann doch nicht so beneidenswert; Alexander wusste einst (doch eher glaubwürdig) zu berichten, dass in der Welt der Hollywood-Stars, in der er sich eine Zeitlang aufgehalten habe, ein doch deutlich empfundenes Sinndefizit herrsche. David Bowie, der alles erreicht hatte, hat in späteren Jahren gemeint, wenn er noch einmal auf die Welt käme, würde er ein spirituelleres Leben führen wollen („ein Mönch sein, der allerdings viel Gitarre spielt“). Das Einheits-Bewusstsein ist das Höchste, was an diesseitiger Spiritualität erreichbar ist. Es ist wahrscheinlich das, was alle wollen. Allerdings halt einmal das Einheits-Bewusstsein allein zu haben, ist auch ungemütlich, noch dazu, wenn es den Neid und die gekränkte Eitelkeit unter den Mächtigen hervorruft, also dazu beiträgt, den Außenseiterstatus zu zementieren. Bhagwan hat gemeint, von seinem Rolls Royce aus (den ihm reiche Bewunderer geschenkt haben), der letzte Sinn liege nicht unbedingt in der Askese allein – der Sinn liege darin, ein materiell wie ideell reiches Leben zu führen. Bhagwan hat die Erleuchtung selbst erfahren. Sloterdijk nennt ihn einen „Wittgenstein der Religion“ Gegen Ende seines Lebens hat Bhagwan pessimistisch gemeint, dass er keine großen Hoffnungen für die Menschheit mehr habe. Mit einer großen Hoffnung habe er zu lehren angefangen, doch ganz allmählich habe die Menschheit diese Hoffnungen zerstört. Jetzt habe er nur mehr für einen kleinen Teil der Menschheit Hoffnung. „Ich nenne ihn: meine Leute“. Im Einheits-Bewusstsein kommen seltene und höchst qualitative Sachen und gute Eigenschaften zusammen. Das Problem ist, dass es einen in eine intensivere Verbindung mit der Welt bringt, allerdings eben auch von der empirisch-sittlichen Welt entfernt. Diese Paradoxie muss man dann doch erst einmal aushalten; vor allem für den Träger des Einheits-Bewusstseins mag das eine besondere Herausforderung sein (nicht allein, weil sein Empfinden ja allgemein viel intensiver ist, sondern eben auch, weil es ihn – und ihn ganz allein – ja auch persönlich betrifft). Was sind die Mächte der Geschichte? Das kann man nicht übergeschichtlich sagen, vielfach sind sie anonym. In seinen Weltgeschichtlichen Betrachtungen sagt Jacob Burkhardt:

Gegenüber von solchen geschichtlichen Mächten pflegt sich das zeitgenössische Individuum in völliger Ohnmacht zu fühlen (Problem des Woyzek, Anm.); es fällt in der Regel der angreifenden oder der widerstreitenden Partei zum Dienst anheim. Wenige Zeitgenossen haben für sich einen archimedischen Punkt außerhalb der Vorgänge gewonnen und vermögen die Dinge „geistig zu überwinden“ und vielleicht ist dabei die Satisfaktion nicht groß, und sie können sich eines elegischen Gefühls nicht erwehren, weil sie alle anderen in der Dienstbarkeit lassen müssen. Erst in späterer Zeit wird der Geist vollkommen frei über solcher Vergangenheit schweben.

Das Einheits-Bewusstsein ist überweltlich und überzeitlich. Durch seine überzeitliche, ewige Perspektive ist es in der späteren Zeit bereits heute angekommen. Also können ihm die Kämpfe der heutigen Zeit ein wenig egal sein (unter anderem auch, weil sie sowieso so dumm sind, und im Einheits-Bewusstsein gibt es eben keine Kämpfe). Es sieht allerdings auch – und empfindet vor allen Dingen auch – , dass die spätere Zeit der heutigen irgendwie ähneln wird. Allerdings kann man Einsicht in die Ewigkeit ja auch nur haben, wenn es ewiges, das heißt einigermaßen identisches gibt. Transzendenz und Erleuchtung bedeutet, dass es eben etwas niederer Ordnung geben muss, über das sich die Transzendenz erhebt, und auf das sich die Transzendenz, in einer schwer beschreibbaren und nicht eindeutigen höheren Dimension aus bezieht. Wenn jetzt einer in zusätzlichen räumlichen und zeitlichen Dimensionen lebt, lebt er aber eben doch auch in denselben Dimensionen wie alle anderen. Büchner ist erst Jahrzehnte nach seinem Tod bekannt geworden, sein Geist erst relativ spät vollkommen frei über solcher Vergangenheit geschwebt. Aber er hatte Recht, auch in seinen Einsichten in den geschichtlichen Gang, auch als zunächst radikaler, dann gemäßigter, reformerischer Revolutionär. Lemmy von Motörhead sagte einmal, er und John Lennon seien letztendlich darin gescheitert, die Welt zu verändern (zumindest bezogen auf ihren ursprünglichen, naiven Idealismus), denn sie wollten das Geld bekämpfen. Aber man kann das Geld nicht bekämpfen. Nun denn, aber das Geld und jegliche wirtschaftliche und politische Macht können auch das Einheits-Bewusstsein nicht bekämpfen und ihm nicht den geringsten Schaden zufügen, selbst wenn sie es wollten. Macht hat man letztendlich nur dann vollständig erlangt, wenn man die nicht allein die äußerliche, sondern die innere Freiheit des Anderen auslöscht oder korrumpiert. Das Einheits-Bewusstsein ist aber nicht mal allein unkorrumpierbare innere Freiheit, sondern die absolute Freiheit des chaosmotischen Prozesses der Welt. Es ist unbesiegbar, weil die Welt in ihrer Totalität, die es abbildet, unbesiegbar ist. Es ist so unbesiegbar wie das Geld. Es richtet sich auch nicht notwendigerweise gegen das Geld, so wie das Geld sich ja nicht notwendigerweise gegen das Einheits-Bewusstsein richtet. Sollten diese beiden Mächte gegeneinander kämpfen, geht es unentschieden aus; unter anderem, da sie ja zu einem guten Teil unterschiedlichen Sphären angehören. Schau, da oben, über der Erde, in der Exosphäre: da ist die Möbiusschleife des Einheits-Bewusstseins, und die Möbiusschleife des Laufs der Welt. Das ist das Sinnbild, wie sich, in Einsamkeit, die Welt und das Welt-Bewusstsein prozessiert. Das ist die Ewigkeit der Dinge. Büchner hat das alles verstanden; Goethe auch; jeder versteht das, aber die Vision bei Büchner finde ich am besten und am Intensivsten. Büchner war erleuchtet. Es kommt im Leben einfach darauf an, nicht bloß Universalgenie, sondern eben auch erleuchtet zu sein. Dann hat man ein gutes Beispiel gegeben; war allerdings auch eine prekäre Erscheinung.

31.1. + 2.2. + 4.2.2020

Georg Büchner und Lautréamont

Aliens Looking for Real Fun (Spellling, Shampoo, Sheidlina and the Antisphere)

Posted on by

Spellling I find to be the contemporary Queen of Pop and the greatest Queen of Pop since Shampoo! Consequently, Shampoo are barely remembered and Spellling is barely known (currently she has 1.824 followers on FB). Shampoo were perfect individuals, and individualism is what (some) people try to achieve and some collective phantasma; in the final instance, nevertheless, the individual is an antithesis to any collective and therefore disembedded. The perfect individual will be truly monadic, and the highest degree of individuality gets achieved when someone erects his empire in the highest anarchy, as a loner and a hermit, says Nietzsche. Whereas Shampoo were a fusion of punk, kitsch, girlie pop, abrasiveness, cuteness, Sex Pistols, East 17 and Gary Numan; Spellling is commonly characterised as an amalgam of afropop, R & B, darkwave, vintage electronic, howling, whispering, presence and elusiveness, something that is child-like as well is it is uncanny and haunted. Yet, by all means, the music of Spellling is perfectly pure and in no way derivative. Bhagwan, the 20th century Zarathustra, says: One who wants to transcend this obnoxious humanity will need to be so extreme that humanity will deem him/her crazy! Spellling appears highly eccentric, also (occasionally) in the way she dresses (at most occasions she is just rather casually clothed though, like I am, since we are no pretenders), in reality she is just completely sane and is the magic source and the center from which all rationality and creativity pours out. There she stands, in stasis, where everything around her revolves! Nietzsche says, (when the highest level of consciousness is reached), there shall be „something inexpressible, to which joy and truth are only feeble after-images … earth is losing its gravity, the incidents and the powers of earth become dream-like, like on a summer evening a transfiguration and glorification comes into place….“ (Schopenhauer as Educator). Yes, indeed, strange celestial realms, which are beyond that what is commonly imagined as Heaven (since they also incorporate, as a necessary by-product of totality, Hell). It is the Antisphere! In Heaven you are in a permanent communion with Christ, the Grand Unifier. However, how should the wandering mind be in an everlasting communion with anything, including the Grand Unifier?! The Antisphere explodes with colours. It is the phase space of creativity. In the Antisphere you are in a negatively curved space, on a line of flight into infinity, as you are in permanent communion with your own transgression. In the Antisphere you do not want to confirm of affirm yourself. You want to get rid o fand away from yourself. All my life I just tried to get away from myself, said Marcel Duchamp, the Holy Ghost of 20th century art. That´s the spirit of art and of (any sort of) enlightenment! In the Antisphere you are in perfect harmony with yourself, since in the Antisphere you are the source. Janis said, of all the great artists he had personally met, only Duchamp and Mondrian had been truly harmonious and uncompetetive personalities. This is the Antisphere. Spellling says she loves the figures of wizards, tricksters and jesters. Yorick, the Fool. Spellling says the essence of Spellling is about capturing the essence, the magic of every moment. As concerns the heavens, Spellling says she does not know about the afterlife, but she is interested in parallel lives. Her dad has synaesthesia. In the video to Under the Sun (set up by congenial collaborator Catalina Xavlena and in which you see the Antisphere) she dances like the most intelligent person in the world. In general, in the Antisphere the dances between signifier and the signified are beyond common understanding and beyond the limits of (post) structuralism, they become a unified whole, reality and dream become one, the phantasma becomes transgressed; it is the mind of the Grand Unifier death to false metal.

Solange, the little eccentric sister of Beyoncè, I find also charming ->

Sheidlina is also from the Antisphere. She once said, after doing this stuff for years, she has come to recognise that coolness like that will only ever be something for a tiny minority to be grasped (haha, very cool!).

The Cute and Weird Universe of Ellen Sheidlin

Out of Touch With Reality / Prelude to Note About the Unitary Consciousness

Posted on by

I am not out of touch with reality. It is just that reality is often quite stupid whereas philosophy is often quite interesting.

However, there is a level of consciousness that is above the level of most philosophers, and that is Unitary Consciousness/Einheits-Bewusstsein. In the Unitary Consciousness, all manifestations of (inner and outer) reality merge into one, “all forms of life are seen as manifestations of the same cosmic being, the boundary between internal and external world becomes permeable, the self is mirrored in all manifestations of the world”, “reality and fiction do not exist anymore; space, time, dream and waking state amalgamate into an all-embracive experience”, etc. It is fluid and homogenous and enables careful selectiveness as it means permanently processing the universe anew (commonly referred to as “seeing the Matrix”). It operates at the level of analysis and integration above the disciplinary segregation of the Hegelian Absolute Spirit (which expresses itself in Science, Art, Philosophy and Religion) and embraces them all and amalgamates them into one (which, practically, means that it oscillates in all them dimensions). Armstrong notices that a very tiny minority of yogis are able reach a level of perception where that which is perceived can only be described via paradoxes any longer, as they encounter a presence that is also absence, abundance that is also emptiness, life that is also death and vice versa, etc. The Unitary Consciouness is a fluid, compeletely even space, that can only be channeled through the non-counterintuitive non-irr/rational (meta) paradoxon illustrated, for instance, in the Koan in Zen-Buddhism. It can also be described as the recognition of the Tao or the space that gets opened via Satori in Zen-Buddhism getting combined with the Western analytical and learned mind. I shall elaborate on the Unitary Consciousness somewhere in time.

Why Good Philosophers Are Out of Touch with Reality

Unitary Consciousness

Occasional Remarks About the Nirvana

Posted on by

Let us, for practical reasons in life, say that Nirvana is not a world beyond but that you break the cycle of rebirth and karma as via the reflection of the reflection you break through the material hyle and gain transcendent knowledge. I have labelled this state of the mind/soul the White Lodge. Bergson (and others) says in order to gain knowledge and familiarity with the world an enormous amount of stuff needs to be reflected and amalgamated (not only the seemingly intellectually important stuff but also the seemingly intellectually unimportant stuff), gradually the turbulent ultradialectics of the reflection over the reflection will (of course remain but also) transcend into a flatness and evenness of the mindfield that becomes pacified – which is then, in its fluorescent white – the Nirvana. Desire will not stop, and as we have already seen via the confessions of such distinguished mystics like Teresa of Avila or Marguerite Porete, the vision of pure white light – if you can ever reach it – is only a temporary one before you fall back into a lower state of consciousness as your mind permanently wanders. Via Zen-meditation you can reach a state where the observation of the wandering of mind becomes the state of the mind, i.e. one of meta-perception, yet also as the Zen masters say, they have not gained a lot via enlightenment. The flatness and the purity of the mindfield is reached via the great fluidity of the mind and the empathic knowledge of things (leading to the internalisation and introjection of them things). You will not refute ideals but you will also not be fooled by them, be neither a dreamer nor a fatalist nor cynic, you will act and think according to the order and the flow of things, that is then (as limited as it is ever possible) mastery over the things and therefore liberation. Nirvana, in the practical sense, is not reaching for a world beyond, but creation of interior and opening of the inner world that becomes realigned with the outer world.

Despite you may have broken the cycle of rebirth and karma and reached completion, you may easily find yourself wandering fragmentedly through the Samsara of the man´s world, as not many people will truly understand you. Sometimes they will of course understand you better than you do and offer glimpses of insight. That is, and will remain, strange, as „strangeness“ is inherent to the world – but it will be, as you have introjected strangeness, also inherent to yourself. People that reside very at the center of the Nirvana will also not be super impressed by it. As Goethe says to Eckermann, founders of religions like Jesus Christ or the Buddha have extroverted their inner richness, i.e. their subjective spirituality and transformed it into (objective) religion (respectively, others like Paulus have done so and likely watered it down). As in such cases, their subjective spirituality, their acquisition of cosmic consciousness, is of objective importance, it may well be that they fall prey to their spirituality and become an instrument of their spirituality/religion (like also many enlightened and rational minds like Newton or Pascal did) (at lower levels of spirituality, or when personality is distorted it may become the other way round and inflate their narcissism). Thou shalt not be fooled by thy spirituality and your messages and become an instrument of it, but remain in control of it, not become instrumentalised by it but make it instrumental for you. That will probably, or apparently, not make you (appear) very enchanted or happy, as is seemingly the case within the religious/spiritual enthusiast. You will be neutral most of the time. Some say the tragic of the truly spiritual/religious man is that he neither truly lives in this world nor the next. That may appear so, but the center of the Nirvana means you perfectly live in both of them worlds – a condition that, due to its essential strangeness, often leads to essential confusion. Essential confusion is the essential state of the true philosopher.

(Iron Maiden sing in Hallowed Be Thy Name that, facing death, you will realise that „life down here is just a strange illusion“. Therefore, what I just said above, advanced as it is nevertheless, may also just be a bizarre illusion, but this is so because as long as you wander through the world and your mind is wandering you have some attachments. Therefore, no need to worry. That´s how subjectivity is constituted. Via some attachments my subjectivity has been constituted in the past and now, in the present, by some others. Apart from that, we´re rather hollow. That´s how the story goes, that´s what is „the flow“, as long as the world concerns you to some degree. At the end of Jim Jarmusch´s Dead Man, as Nobody sends „William Blake“ to his last journey on a boat to the sea, he smiles at him and says: This world will no longer concern you (in German: Von nun an wird dich diese Welt nichts mehr angehen). Dead Man has one of the most epic endings of any film. When I am going to die, I also want to float away like this – and to experience my loss of attachments. That is not a great effort of course when you die. However, see it as a message from the future and a glimpse of insight. The world actually only partially concerns me.)

Aeon

May 10 at 6:00pm

Liberating oneself from a cycle of rebirths might seem irrelevant to the non-believer. But nirvana is a radical undertaking: it represents a liberation from an endless cycle of rebirth; or liberation from the utterly human, persistent desire for things to be different. There is something useful there for anyone http://ow.ly/VdHt30jVzbi

Nirvana can seem an exotic metaphysical idea until you look closer – Robert Wright | Aeon Essays
Liberating oneself from rebirths might seem irrelevant to the non-believer. But nirvana is also a profound psychological goal
AEON.CO
(Kommentar zur Monadologie von Leibniz)

Frage des Stils

Posted on by

“Das höchste Gefühl von Macht und Sicherheit kommt in dem zum Ausdruck, was großen Stil hat. Die Macht, die keinen Beweis mehr nötig hat; die es verschmäht, zu gefallen; die schwer antwortet; die keinen Zeugen um sich fühlt; die ohne Bewusstsein davon lebt, dass es Widerspruch gegen sie gibt; die in sich ruht, fatalistisch, ein Gesetz unter Gesetzen: Das redet als großer Stil von sich.”

F. Nietzsche

Philip Hautmann Wer ein funktionierendes Hirn hat, hat sowieso immer Stil und muss das auch nicht über Schreibschulen u.dergl. erlernen bla bla (wie jeder weiß). Das letzte, wozu Stil kommen kann, der transzendente Stil, der Blick in den Chaosmos, er erfasst die Totalität und ist daher psychosenah, aber bei vollkommen klarem Verstand, es ist die Super Sanity, man hat das in hervorragendster Weise bei Büchner (Lenz), Lautréamont (Maldoror), Rimbaud (Leuchtende Bilder), an und für sich auch bei Shakespeare; und, ach, die absolute Beweglichkeit der Sprache auf diesem, letzten, Plateau!, ich habe es anderswo als die Decke bezeichnet der absoluten Empathie mit der Welt, lückenlos wahrgenommen; sagen wir, das Gefühle des Triumphs auf diesem unachtfechtbarsten aller Niveaus sich irgendwie verflüchtigen, wie alles andere irgendwie auch, die Persönlichkeit z.B., übrig bleibt eine Anordnung von virtuellen Schalen, die sich gegenseitig enthalten oder spiegeln, so ist das dann halt: die Übereinanderlagerung von allem und wenn man alles gleichzeitig sieht; der Mensch ist ausgeschaltet bzw. verliert sich in und transzendiert sich über die Übereinanderlagerungen seiner inneren Bezirke, so dass das Ich faktisch nicht mehr ganz existiert; der Stil setzt sich über die Explosionen in sich selbst und wird perfekt wie Sand (mikrogranular und gleichgültig gegenüber Interventionen von außen), das ethische Bewusstsein wird vollkommen; im Wesentlichen fühlt man sich so ein bisschen wie ein Geist – aber wie soll man sich anders fühlen, wenn man das Ziel erreicht und ganz Geist geworden ist? Was hat das mit dem Leben noch zu tun – nichts und alles, und die Bücher sind für alle und keinen. – Ich wiederhole mich, aber das verdient sich doch immer wieder gesagt zu werden und jedes Mal kommt ja auch irgendwas Neues dazu etc. und wie viele gibt es schon, die so was zu sagen vermögen? also ist das gut, dass es hier wieder gesagt wird; auf jeden Fall: Groß und Klein, Macht und Ohnmacht etc. verliert an Bedeutung, spiegeln sich ineinander wieder, im Auge Gottes, ein blauer Strahl schießt jetzt neben mir auf, ich liege auf der Straße, als Ohnmächtiger und bewege mich in allen möglichen Schemen etc. Die Gleichzeitigkeit von Virtualität und Aktualität. Irrationale Zahl. Das Hyperset.

White Light from the Mouth of Infinity

Posted on by

Recently I bought me some books, anthologies by female Christian mystics Mechthild of Magdeburg, Teresa of Avila and Marguerite Porete (as well as male Christian mystic Dionysius the Areopagite (although Dionysius probably also was a woman, since his true identity remains obscure – therefore s/he is also commonly referred to as Pseudo-Dionysius)). Mysticism strives for the unio mystica, the becoming one with deity through purification of personality (which is therefore often a nuisance to clerics, since it undermines the authority of the church as intermediary between man´s world and the divine: especially Mechthild had no easy life and Marguerite was sentenced to death by the Inquisition). Especially both Teresa and Marguerite were talking about stages of enlightenment, in the highest form the soul becomes a medium of divine perception. Teresa said, God can be understood as a diamond, greater than the entire world, where everything can be seen, and in which she happened to see herself and her actions at incredibly speed and heavily concentrated (leaving her a bit embarassed to see her noble deeds as well as her sins without any true distance from each other). Such a soul has been touched by the divine light. Yet, interestingly, both Teresa and Marguerite say that seeing the divine light is just a short flash, that may happen only once or a few times in life. Full unio mystica, i.e. becoming one with the divine light, is only possible after death, in this life the soul is to still remain in the body and to wander the earth, and also the fully developed mystic still remains, in parts, an earthly, human creature that is object of suffering and possible setbacks. – I am somehow relieved to hear that from such distinguished persons, since I was thinking that my own enlightenment was incomplete. Furthermore, I see there seems to be no use in expecting anything more than that, to achieve an entire clear (of complete balancedness): No hope = no fear. Bucke wrote in his book about Cosmic Consciousness about the white light, and also Colin Wilson wrote about it in The Outsider. Colin Wilson saw the white light too at a young age, and he said all his life has been a strive to bring back that moment. I also saw the white light when I was writing my second book, I thought, compared to the epiphanies described by those people mine was a weak epiphany, but I think indeed it was a higher one, since I am more rational than they are/were. Bucke said, of all the enlightened people in history Walt Whitman was the only true (highly modern) individual that did not fall prey or become an instrument of his divine perception, but rather turned it into an instrument for himself. I think I also remain in control (if I am not mistaken about my enlightenment at any rate). I called this form of enlightened perception the White Lodge, as readers of my convulsions may now know. (Dionysius the Areopagite spoke of God as a „dark light“ that illuminates the earth, but that can be truly seen only through his absence to the obvious gaze. A deep bass I connect synaeasthetically with the headlight of this dark light).

White Light from the Mouth of Infinity is a major album by Swans. It combines the most outstanding songwriting, majestic elegy, triumphantly arranged, with extremely depressing lyrics. The cover is one the coolest I´ve ever seen. On the front you have a human rabbit, reaching out his carrot antenna at the end of the world, likely in search for someone else, his soulmate, his counterpart. On back you have him eventually have found him. I wrote to Jarboe many years ago and mentioned the album and the artwork, she was asking in return whether I want to purchase the original artwork „at a reasonable price“. But I could not afford it anyway. In my apartment there is a poster of it, hanging on the wall nevertheless.

Wir wollen also sagen, die Gottheit sei wie ein überaus klarer Diamant, der weit größer ist als die ganze Welt, oder ein Spiegel nach der Art desjenigen, welcher in der früher gedachten Vision die Seele empfing, nur dass er auf eine weit erhabenere Weise sich zeigte; auf eine Weise, die ich nicht hoch genug vorzuführen vermag und dass alles, was wir tun, in diesem Diamanten gesehen wird, so gesehen wird, dass er alles in sich schließt, und weil es nichts gibt, was über diese Größe hinausgeht.

Staunenswert war es für mich, in so kurzer Zeit so vieles in diesem klaren Diamanten nebeneinander zu erblicken. Höchst bedauerlich ist es mir andererseits jedes Mal, wie so garstige Dinge, wie es meine Sünden sind, sich in jener klaren Lauterkeit ebenfalls darstellten. Gewiss, wenn ich daran denke, weiß ich nicht, wie ich es ertragen kann. Deshalb wurde ich auch mit Scham erfüllt, dass ich nicht wusste, wohin ich mich wenden sollte…

Teresa von Avila

Piet Mondrian (and the Geometry of the White Lodge)

Posted on by

I like the name Piet Mondrian. It is like an oval spheroid, self-saturated, self-contained, stabilising itself in his own harmony. A rippling, a wave, a self circuit that does not spread confusion or butterfly effects in the universe but that comfortably leads back again to its own start, to be explored again. Piet Mondrian. Indeed, Piet Mondrian was one of the leading proponents of making harmony great again in art. Look at the immersion of mind, progressively plunging into deep reality, to finally see the movement of primal/eternal forms, to give rise to new concepts and frameworks in order to communicate and understand reality, getting into closer touch with it! See how he starts as a naturalist painter, occasionally flirting with impressionism, portraying quiet nature or quiet people! Gradually the fire of deep reality litting eleven poplars, the woods near Oele, red cloud in the sky, devotie becoming more intense, apple trees becoming more semi-abstractly distinguished from as well as embedded in the background, the windmills as evocation of silent materiality increasingly on fire and finally a triumphant semi-abstract red mill (leading critics to denounce such paintings as „insane“)! In accordance to Mondrian´s thinking inspired by theosophy the evolution of (wo)man as a hypercycle! Then, in his peculiar adaption of cubism nature made of eccentric lines and curves, until the basic raster of reality of geometric lines finally breaks through (most perfect in Composition VI), then loosens its own grip (Composition 10), then becomes replaced by somehow moving rectangles/colour fields, until you finally have impersonal geometric grids (that would alienate critics and cubists from such an approach)! At that time and point of immersion, Mondrian was alienated from the art scene, devoid of success and unsure how to progress further (and he thought about giving up art and becoming a sailor then). With the help of friends he was lucky to find a humble but steady income nevertheless and in deep doubt how to progress further the final breakthrough happened into his signature paintings made of lines, rectangles and colour fields over white ground! Kind of „last paintings that can be made“ the possibilities of movement within such basic scenario are vivid; in the 1930s his paintings would often become even more minimalistic. In his final period, when he moved to London and eventually to New York, the geometry of New York would provide new inspirations, the grid becoming deep and threedimensional or vibrating in its own fractal intensity to the Broadway Boogie Woogie – the calm and calculated Mondrian also was a big fan of jazz and a vivid dancer, likely not only for Dionysian reasons but also as an adherent of the eccentric and moving/shifting geometry expressed in jazz (indeed, Mondrian was both an ascetic monk as well as a hedonist, in both respects at peace with himself and balanced in himself). As a theorist, Mondrian was an eminent and influential figure of the De Stijl movement (although it should be noted that other members of De Stijl like Theo van Duesburg and Bart van der Leck were very influential upon Mondrian). Like suprematism in Russia, De Stijl was striving for expression of harmony and perfection. In Mondrian´s understanding, art was not about the „self expression“ of an artist, but a striving for expressing that which is universal, and eternal (and therefore harmonious). As such, as a seeker for deep reality, who wants to see through things, in order to investigate the thing-in-itself, Mondrian was a metaphysical artist. At his time, Mondrian had to acknowledge that religion as the sphere of the universal had become superseded. Instead, a protean modern subject had come into power as well as an impersonal technology that facilitates, standardises and explosively increases productivity and the possibilities of man. Like other abstractionists, Mondrian saw abstraction as the possibility to express the metaphysics of a modern, industrialised age – but he hoped that within that process of amalgamation or dialectics, a more concrete subject would come into being, a man that is fully matured, who is able to reflect and internalise the forces of protean subjectivity and technology and is not alienated by them: that is, then, the new, and final universal (or, the overman, if you want). In order to master a transgression like this, art had to supersede to be spiritual by expressing the tragic of human experience but had to become intellectual via a purified intellect – and Mondrian´s artistic endeavours can be understood as an undertaking of purifying the intellect. In that respect, Mondrian also said his art was about the expression of pure relation and pure relationships between things (as, so to say, the network of reality). As, in reality, relationships between things can never be seen directly but only concealed, the task of the artist is to directly express those relationships: in the pure form, the relationship between the thing and the other thing is a square angle (and the emanations of reality colour fields). That is the primal geometry of the world (respectively the mind that looks at it). The Universal means the unification or concilliation of object and subject, respectively, as Mondrian deals with it, of the thing and the other thing. Harmony is established when object and subject, the thing and the other thing are reconciled. Like in the works of his fellow compatriot Vincent van Gogh, trees have been a prominent subject in the (earlier) paintings of Mondrian, allegedly symbolising the solitary artist, in his serenity and timelessness. While van Gogh can be said to have been a Dionysian painter, Mondrian was Apollonian. While Vincent´s letters were maniac and passionate, Mondrian´s self-reflection was expressed in the mode of calculated and methodological essays. While Vincent was expressing the sensational character of the world, or of his mind, directly, Mondrian expressed them indirectly. In the white ground of his paintings, where lines and surfaces are erected, you have the white noise of possibilities in which everything is contained …. Remember that I called the space where you are surrounded by white nebulaic light, where ideological and doctrinal segregation between things have broken down and you have pure and universal perception the White Lodge. And indeed, the White Lodge can also be seen as a space of the possibility of pure relations. It is the space of the beginning and the end, of the Alpha and Omega, where subject and object, the thing and the other thing are reconciled as waves within the continuum that is the White Lodge. Mondrian´s signature paintings can be understood as expressions of a white Nirvana, they can also be understood as expressing the geometry of the White Lodge.

Although he is considered the major Netherlandic painter of the 20the century, Mondrian remained relatively poor during his lifetime. He never married. When he happened to have success and his reputation increasing, he would perplex people and lose his reputation again as he would become more experimental again and moving to new territories. I find it very sad not to have found an extensive biography of him, but he also destroyed letters and traces from his past later in life as he became confortable with maintaining his image as an impersonal „art monk“ so that it seems a bit difficult to distinguish how much of this was motivated by constructing an image (which is, nevertheless, likely of a greater necessity also in the most venerable regions of human endeavour in order to make oneself a circulating unit) or simply the truest and the natural form of Mondrian himself. I have read elsewhere that there are no indications that Mondrian had a lot of humour, contrary to many humorists he never gave up his enduring optimism about the arrival of the universal man. Later in his life at peace he had been very much at peace with himself and he never gave up hope. In preparing this note I have read however that it would frequently happen that people reluctant or in opposition against Mondrian´s paintings sooner or later have an epiphany how harmonious and calming those paintings are, radiating inner peace. Art dealer Sidney Janis said in his career he had met only two artists who did „not feel compelled to defend their own vision against that of others“, who were vastly tolerant and balanced, therefore, in a way, im/transpersonalised truth seekers: One was Duchamp, the other one was Mondrian. In the valuable book „Kunst des 20. Jahrhunderts“ (edited by Ingo F. Walther) the conclusion about Mondrian was that although his mature paintings seem to be easy, hardly any artist is more difficult to imitate or to forge than Mondrian. Of all the artists of De Stijl who were striving for harmony, Mondrian (they said) was the only one to have actually achieved it.

 

Metaphysical Note about Extreme Metal

Posted on by

More recently I purchased the following CDs:

  • Abyssal: Antikatastaseis
  • Adverserial: D.E.N.A.T.B.K.O.N.
  • Mitochondrion: Archaeaon
  • Pyrrhon: Growth Without End
  • Sarpanitum: Blessed Be My Brothers
  • This Gift Is A Curse: All Hal The Swinelord

I welcome it that after a period of stagnation there are fresh and fruitful developments in extreme metal again! While extreme metal bands of former generations like Morbid Angel or Meshuggah sounded like if they came from another planet, bands like Abyssal, Pyrrhon or Mitochondrion sound as if they directly came from the depths of outer space (maybe from close to the region where Azathoth dwells). I call this progressive. Within those song structures we have nice chaos invocation and abstract beauty amalgamated with uncanniness giving an impression of the sublime. It gives you a sense of place – of belonging and forlornness. Of your attachedness and your seperatedness in the universe, etc. It´s a borderline, exurbia and edge phenomenon; look at how ambiguous it is and how much enigmatic meaning it carries, permanently shifting the Great Frontier! It´s metaphysical.

What I always liked about extreme metal is that it definitely confronts you with other, strange worlds (that aren´t so strange after all and for instance the occasional lyrics about Satan etc. are much more realistic and less phony than the love songs you hear on the radio). – It is both strange and surreal, and hyperrealistic and more human than human. It adds a (or multiple) dimensions to your perception. It confronts you with that that is the other and that that is unexpected. It unites the hemispheres.

„WESTERN“ METAPHYSICS

Let us, ideally, say that the „Western“ mind is analytical, scientific. It is about isolating and analysing things to gain rational knowledge about the thing, with the possibility (or the permanent horizon) to get to know the „thing in itself“. It strives for knowledge to manipulate things and transform civilisation via technology. It is concerned with the possibility of solid knowledge.

„EASTERN“ METAPHYSICS

Let us, ideally, say that the „Eastern“ mind, exemplified e.g. in the metaphysics of Zen, is more about getting to know and experiencing the faculty of perception and rationalisation itself. It is about dissolving the subject and amalgamating it with the object world, into a state of (for the sake of simplicity) productive mimesis. However, this state will involve serenity and sedateness, an acceptance of a certain resistance of things against manipulation and an acceptance of fate. It is concerned with the possibility of solid awareness.

UNPRODUCTIVE SYNTHESIS

Bhagwan says, people in the East have soft, fragmentary egos, and they are able to surrender and devotion (Hingabe) easily – yet their surrender is not very deep: it remains superficial. People of the West have strong and solid egos, and they are resistant towards surrender and spirituality. He concludes that a person that synthesises East and West may become something that is really interesting and transformative, but that is difficult.

„Eastern“ metaphysics somehow was designed as a pacification from unproductive upheaval and turmoil in a pre-scientific age i.e. when things could not fundamentally be changed. „Eastern“ metaphysics does not „solve“ the metaphysical problems but dissolves them, but unfortunately may also dissolve physics respectively the scientific mind, and its relaxedness may result in apathy, the insight that some things cannot be changed may make people forget to try to. The „Western“ metaphysics of the rational mind may lead to a tunnel vision and feelings of estrangement and disconnectedness from a greater whole, a disrespect for „soft“ sciences and arrogance. The „Eastern“ downside is being unscientific, the downside of the „West“ is being soulless. From a sociological point of view, Eastern societies are collectivist societies whereas Western societies are individualistic societies (with both easily abhoring each other or finding each other uncanny, although the productive synthesis includes the better elements of both).

THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE OVERMAN (PRODUCTIVE SYNTHESIS)

It is said East and West are very different and difficult to unite. They are respective others. However, if you approach the other you can gradually internalise it. The trick is not to make the other a toy of your ideology and accomodate it to you, but to take it serious. The full internalisation of the man´s world is the overman. It can also be described as the so-called unitary consciousness where all forms of life, where reality, dream, fiction, time, space, matter unite into a single, fluid, penetrating experience, where contours of individualities do not dissolute but become osmotic. The analytical mind is not pacified but intensified and empowered. There is not perfect exchangeability of background and motif as you have it in the vision of Zen, rather a fractal geometry of the universe, i.e. where the „deep structure“ can be progressively revealed and calculated and where there is no stubborn resistance against „inconvenient“ truths or discoveries, since nothing is truly „inconvenient“.

By permanently approaching and confronting the other, you increase your experience and widen your perception. By trying to integrate the other and internalise it, you widen your intellect and your personality, and you reduce your indoctrinations and your ego (if, however, you don´t have much of an ego in the first place). You transcend personality into the transpersonal and become open space. It is very profound.

Meaning of life – and meaning in general – lies in establishing connections (and pathological/endogenous depression means inability to establish true connections to anything). By connecting to the other, the most wide-ranging and permanently evolving connectivity is possible. Overmen usually appear „otherworldly“ (whereas they are also the most realistic persons) because they primarily relate to the other and to their respective counterpart (Socrates and Kierkegaard talked to anyone in the streets, T.W. Hickinson noticed that obscure Emily Dickinson was very aware and concerned about him as her counterpart, Shakespeare is hardly tactile as an individual but rather seems a transpersonalised consciousness over the tapestry of life, Wittgenstein, Kafka and Beckett were also very concerned about others including the possibility of self-sacrifice, etc.). Therefore, they include otherness and the Great Other in themselves and therefore they carry and execute the so-called divine law in themselves. They appear „alien“ as nothing is alien to them. And why? Because they actually relate to the other!

 

(Written 2015-2017)

Postsciptum: If you think this is stupid and esoteric wait for the various Postscripts to the Metaphysical Note about Extreme Metal which shall appear over time since of course I am able to discuss Kripke and Quine as well, as well as Gadamer and Ricoeur et al.

Prelude to the Metaphysical Note about Extreme Metal

Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss Meet the Hipster

Posted on by

Carl Schmitt has to be understood as a guy obsessed about order. As a young conservative intellectual in the Weimar Republic he was concerned with the question how a modern state derives its legitimacy, as the influence of religion and the church had waned, monarchies had been overthrown, no consensus and self-conception of democracy had been established and (bourgeois, capitalistic) democracy was under siege from left and right – in such a turbulent age it was actually no mean question about how the modern state could actually be grounded. After the Nazis took power, Schmitt became a member of the NSDAP and although his career suffered a major setback already in 1936, he remained „Kronjurist“ of the Third Reich. After the defeat of the Reich he ruminated, somehow enigmatically, about himself and his role in history (with important writings that expose the core of his thinking been published posthumeously). At the core, Schmitt was a conservative Catholic and his central obsession was that human action had to be grounded in the divine relevation, i.e. in the law of God. He opposed relativism, liberalism and modernity and held antisemitic views. One of his best-known concepts is that the political is about the relationship between friend and foe, and therein an autonomous, and primary, sphere of human existence. In a modern, „pacified“, democratic world, the primacy of the political would easily be forgotten, but could easily break into reality again, as a principal, fundamental conflict within the community (or between communities) of what is, fundamentally, right and what is wrong (respectively about who is friend and who is foe). As tensions mount, the sovereign could call for emergency rule (and, to Schmitt, he is the actual sovereign who can impose emergency rule). Schuh once called Schmnitt a „razor-sharp“ thinker: that is actually what he was – with the apparent consequence that Schmitt was rather not very vocal when it came to think about nuances and that plurality and vagueness are things that make up reality as well (also he was not very vocal when it came to depict what a friend is, but concentrated on outlining the qualities of the foe). In such respects, liberal, postmodern thinking is a nemesis on Schmitt – but Schmitt is also a nemesis for the liberal and postmodern approach. At any rate, Schmitt was a relevant and original political thinker – and when Kojève visited Germany once he said that he would only go to Plettenberg, as Schmitt was the only person in Germany worthy of intellectual conversation. When he was examined after the second World War about his collusion with Nazism, Schmitt describd himself to be an „intellectual adventurer“.

Leo Strauss has to be understood as someone concerned about the role of philosophy and the philosopher vs the realm of the political. That is, in fact, the central question of the oeuvre of Strauss. The political/public realm is where faith and opinions (and, notably, interests) dominate and complexity is not very well understood nor welcomed – the zeal of philosophy is to find out and establish truth (which the public sphere of course also wants and needs), hence the relation between the philosopher and the political is a potentially conflictual one: And Strauss` work mainly elaborates on that conflict in its many facets. Strauss placed great emphasis on the hermeneutic principle that a thinker has to be understood the way he understood himself – and not be abused as a toy to underline one´s own peculiar opinion. Likewise, Strauss also considered the philosopher, and the role of philosophy in the political realm, as one of questioning authority in order to search for truth, to escape from a Plato´s cave of wrong our outdated concepts and perceptions – therein, Strauss also had some reservations against political philosophy as establishing conclusive theory (that somehow longs for totalitarianism of itself and may be supportive to authority) but rather was affirmative of philosophy as a permanent questioning: Socrates was an important figure for Strauss. Strauss´ works were comments on other philosophers and he refuted „originality“ in favor of adressing the great and everlasting questions and truths which are, therefore, anonymous (he said that the gravity of a thinker does not lie in his originality but in his capability to adress the great fundamental questions). Like Schmitt, Strauss was a conservative who opposed liberalism and modernity in favor of divine revelation which alone can be absolute guidance for human action. Law also had to be based on natural law, a sentiment that includes elitism. As a community is made out of individuals of different talent, Strauss voices for a meritocracy of the most talented individuals, of „gentlemen“, as democracy leads to populism and decline – the philospher is not wanted by the hostile and envious masses, so the spirit of the philosopher has to be institutionalised by enlightened leaders. The American neoconservatives drew some inspiration from Strauss, although also Strauss, like Schmitt, is a more comphrehensive guy. Strauss commented on Schmitt´s book about the political as realm of distinction between friend and foe, largely favorable (Strauss was a Jew and Schmitt a Nazi at that time) and tried a synthesis with Hobbes´ political philosophy (i.e. that order has to be imposed on a state of virtual anarchy among humans). Both Schmitt and Strauss saw conflicts between men as something unavoidable and profound, as inescapable and out of man´s control, hence as something „metaphysical“.

The hipster cannot be adequately understood. Despite it is being claimed that this phenomenon with its allegedly striking appearance is the big thing of our time (although his heyday he may have already had in the past of the last decade), I cannot sense it so easily. I deliberately walked through hipsteresque places like Neubau or the Museumsquartier recently again, and then there is also the Brunnenmarkt or the Karmelitermarkt and stuff, and although it is frequently quite fancy there, I cannot see stereotypical hipsters (supposedly with beards, undercuts etc.) there, nor even bobos (Vienna is, of course, not a hipster capital like Berlin or, as they say, Portland, Oregon, but if I understand this correct we are talking about a cultural phenomenon that has allegedly spread at least over the Western world). Of course, I do not see hipsters, nor people in general, I only see Buddhas when I look into the world =“> And it annoys me how negativistic people are of each other: Georg opens a new bar and S. and O. and, and, and… spread negativity: Look at the shitty bobo bar! – although it is a quite casual bar and not specifically boboesque! Such a thing happens all the time among humans! – Of course, upon reflection, I also do not feel completely at home in diverse fancy places, although they are not hipsteresque to me; as far as I can see it is where a younger and relatively educated audience dwells, which, however, cannot be subsumed to be bobo or hipster – with the indication that the bobo and the hipster do not actually exist. I find it sad that I do not have a true overview over the social realm, but if someone claims he has, it might just be a hallucination, for instance people complaining about other people, that they are under par where, in reality, they just do not conform to their worldview, the old generation complaining about the youth, and the like… What I hear about the young generation is that they are indeed unpolitical and quite focused about their career and their looks and their lifestyle. It is not a rebellious but quite conformist youth (which doesn´t mean that such a thing would be completely wrong). Bertl, who is a bit older than me but studies at the university now claims there isn´t much to conversate with the youngsters: Though they are pessimistic about the future, they are optimistic about their personal future (which might be accurate) and, in general, „bei denen geht´s um nichts mehr“. They are not rebels, do not adress society at all, like we did, they are private and bourgeois and they do not have any message to tell. – Then there is this thing called hipster black metal! I also cannot sense the vital ingredients of metal – like obscurity, challenging attitude, schizotypal creativity, antisocial stance, outsiderdom and individuality et al. – in there. It is (hipsteresque) independent musicians that have conquered some metal style but do not transport a metal message! It is, obviously, about individuality, but not about an obscure and rebellious, truly schizotypal individuality of the outsider! It does happen at some fancy, elitist margins of society, not outside society, like a concert of a true band like Rotten Sound or Brutal Truth. Hence, it is not actually a metal culture. (Note also that the hipster does not want to be a hipster and when he asked whether he is one, he will decline.)

If we try to understand the hipster however, we refer to the common narrative of the hipster being someone who tries to pronounce his fancy individuality in a millenial age. He is, and wants to be, socially included as well as excluded. In reality, he is socially included and has no desire for true outsiderdom although usually comes up with such a style as a means of elitist, dandyesque destinction. He is avant-gardist as he longs to be the first to spot new, fancy trends and he wants to be cool. He usually does not create art but longs to work in the „creative industry“ and likes to see himself rather like a curator or an initiated consumer of art. He embraces both high and (supposedly) low level art and culture, is heterogenous and eclectic, but not as a natural manifestation of true creativity but as a means of distinction. He opposes the „mainstream“, not because of the void it carries but because he wants to be special. He is not very political and career-motivated – which need not be a bad thing, but often is. He is flexible and, actually, gas-like, as he does not stick to anything in substance and everything becomes exchangeable and disposable to him and he does away with things when they cease to be regarded as „cool“. As he is not fundamentalist, he is ironic – in a likeable way as irony is intelligent, resisitant to a totalitarian and absolutist sentiment and pluralistic, and unlikeable as it runs against true commitment and true intelligence which is about sorting the real thing out. Despite his ironic attitude, the hipster may be quite arrogant or at least blasé (like the avant-gardist or dandy, but without creating true elite culture). He cares about quality of food and may open up fancy restaurants (which is also a plus) but may not care much about animal rights. Sociologically, the hipster may be interpreted as an expression of a homogenisation of society because of increasingly blurred traditional (class) distinctions and stratifications (i.e. the hipster actually being bourgeois, bohemian and exploited proletarian all alike) while, however, distinctions and stratifications are still in place (and are, on the one hand, denied, but also fiercely affirmed and established by the hipster). In terms of gender the somehow feminine/androgynous appearance of the hipster signifies the softening of traditional gender roles. Someone has said, with his zeal for individuality, the hipster is an expression that true individuality is less and less common (or more and more difficult to achieve, or that true or aristocratic individuality or genius is not what is wanted in our time). – As far as I can see there are friendly hipster (?) bars/shops etc. with extremely friendly hipsters (usually females) as well as there are arrogant and unfriendly ones. I recently read a book by Philipp Ikrath (Die Hipster) in which he ruminated that the hipster (who is a youngster now but may occupy positions of power in society in the future i.e. be the coming ruling class and therefore is a relevant object to study) with his non-binding nature is the end of all politics – as solidified positions do not really matter anymore and everything becomes exchangeable, politics in the traditional (and, maybe, any) sense loses its meaning or at least significance. And that was the main motive for writing this note as it sprang to my mind how this would relate to a view on politics as we have it with Schmitt (and Strauss)! 

To philosophise about the hipster, Ikrath comes up with Richard Rorty´s ideal type of the ironic. Opposed to the metaphysicist, who sticks to a concept of absolute truth that governs it all and of life being subjected to subjugate to that absolute truth, including the possibility of personal sacrifice, the ironic denies that there ever is such an absolute truth. Which does not mean that the ironic is a nihilist, just that he would refute absolutist claims. The ironic is constructivistic, embraces plurality and is lenient and tolerant. He is aware of the relativity of all being, and there is no „jargon der eigentlichkeit“ as something the metaphysicist strives for so deeply. Irony works against usurpation and absorption (Vereinnahmung), also against oneself´s possible claims of usurpation, on the other hand there may be a loss of standards, liability, resposibility and true commitment. So much for the philosophy of/about the hipster.

Think of, now, how especially Carl Schmitt would react and what he would do if confronted with someone like the hipster! – I had to smile into myself when I read Ikrath´s book, and the rumination that the hipster is the end of all politics: Indeed, Schmitt with his pronouced (and, I guess, somehow narcissistic and edgy) friend-foe dichotomy and his admiration for hard and sharp decisions! How would he try to grasp the hipster when the hipster is evaporating, or just innocently smiling to him, like a different life form, and then innocently escape like a colourful and innocent butterfly from Schmitt´s angry and nervous grasp, with his latent indecisiveness and not actually knowing pronounced friend and foe demarcations as he embraces everything that is cool at the moment and just opposes anything that is uncool, without regard to the substance so that things are all the time in flux? Schmitt was vocal against „the Romantic“ i.e. a kind of aetheste who is fond of the colourful multifacetedness of the world and his own genius subjectivity that embraces this colourful multifacetedness without, however, engaging into the realm of authentic decisions (i.e. the realm of politics) – there is some allusion to the hipster in there. While such an existence may be pleasant for itself and intense, the political life is actually more intense since it is about profound decisions. In general, the self-empowerment of man is to Schmitt the original sin, and through his eyes the constructivistic hipster with his genius subjectivity may be a false replacement of the true God (again, without however possibly the hipster ever coming up with such an idea and therefore being very confused about Schmitt). Schmitt and Strauss are „metaphysicists“ par excellence and directly opposed to the ironic (hipster). Both were opposed to modernity and the state of bourgeois „security“, i.e. that life has become merely a quest for a pleasant, consumerist life. Both thought that would deprive man of his true inner essence, and of his nobility. A central idea/sentiment of Schmitt was that there should be space for the „anspruchsvolle moralische Entscheidung“ (sophisticated/challenging ethical decision) in which the individual reveals his competence and nobility. Unfortunately, in the case of Schmitt his „anspruchsvolle ethische Entscheidung“ was joining the NSDAP, and his quest for a „Jargon der Eigentlichkeit“ made him, and others like Heidegger or Marinetti, prone to suspect that „authenticity“ and profoundness in Nazism/fascism because they thought that within modernist „confusion“ it is a „real“ thing. Strauss will not be likely to view the hipster as an elitist „gentleman“ who should govern, I guess he would be unhappy about the hipster, yet probably more interesting and open-minded in what he would have to say about the hipster. If I am correct, Schmitt admitted that modern democracy and the Weimar Republic in fact weren´t so bad after all. And, under neoliberalism, the hipster does not actually live in a state of „security“.

http://thetangential.com/2011/02/24/a-guide-to-fucking-hipster-girls/

A while ago I started to write my fourth work of literature, „Die Reise nach Süden“ (Journey to the South) which is about a dream-like scenario in which I, the genius writer, am commissioned by transcendent authorities to go to Ebelsberg/exurbia of the town in the south to teach the people there „the word“, some kind of ominous lesson (I have not yet figured out, and I also stopped writing on it soon thereafter since time and the book market isn´t ripe for a work like the Journey anyway – and me neither (since the message probably will be my final conclusion about life at all which I have not reached so far)). In this place, people live in three blocks of flats, there is an eternal day; it is, allegedly, the end of culture and the triumph of pleasant civilisation, where nothing meaningful about man can be said and no meaningful culture and art is possible anymore. An allusion that may be to Nietzsche´s „last man“ (and Schmitt, Strauss and others say respectively on that behalf), a type of man whose goal is to live a pleasant life, in a levelled, homogenous society, and who is culturally impotent since he does not want to transcend himself anymore and to bring sacrifices to his art; a human being that has lost his connex to a greater cause, or to a great other (be it God, the nation, communism or transcendant art), solely revolving around himself and harmless self-actualisation devoid of true substance, as the triumph of Western enlightenment (people from more collectivist societies may critisise it from a collectivist sentiment). You have „Ich-Verpanzerung“, that Schmitt depsises (and human subjectivity, for itself, if it does not relate to something bigger than itself, is actually in a number of cases quite feeble). – Nietzsche however said that the last man will be a kind of negative of the overman, and in the realm of the last man there will be the incipit Zarathustra. Let us assume that the overman will be a genius subjectivity that embraces the colourful multifacetedness of the world (the „Romantic“, as described by Schmitt) and will be above politics, yet also able of „anspruchsvolle moralische Entscheidung“ as he embodies the quasi-divine law, as he naturally sticks to what is right and opposes what is wrong, socratically, as he does not have a particular ideology and is an ironic as well as a metaphysicist all alike (since the relative and the absolute mirror each other in a multifaceted and occasionally contradictory realm of being and absolute moral asks for some moral relativism, etc.) (Kierkegaard, an overman, was both a staunch metaphysicist as well as a distinct ironic, which confused people so much that they slightly began to understand him only thirty years after his death). Concerning real dichotomies and the question of friend and foe he will acknowledge that in the human realm and as a motive and movens in history you have both (as probably metaphysical categories, as Schmitt said), but he will, as the wise man, and as the Weltgeist (= as the virtual fulfillment of history) never speak himself out of hostility (as Kojève wrote in letter to Schmitt (without however going as far as to reflect that question on the overman). He will stabilise himself in his own complexity and, as he embraces all otherness, he will be his own Great Other within himself.

Neither the hipster nor the metaphysicist nor the ironic nor the overman are completely there in reality, they are some kind of abstractions and ideal types with which we can philosophise about relationships between things and write casual-serious notes like this one.