Why the West is Falling

that's that's wotad sttad that's t that wotad st soot

where go to where go to where to

ne

love is just the history that they may prove and whence their bones i'll tell them y religions when bons their thons to kill the ing upon the doone i'm rest the bs their thones

are not just part formcalagor to care he can rewrite the ug rule of my fury heart i always are nottins in parison pa

yay ya

come doe n down i gota die do do do don come don down tle die gon

i've been thking today

i been thinking today i want to talk about some stuff i have been thinking about

i as you can see i put the sword up

on more on the way

the need to be doing more decorating

could be doing a lot more

but in particular i actually have some stuff i want to talk about

and i want to

you know

share my thoughts

why should i keep them to myself it's not like i want to write it down

that's another thing is that

you guys really just like do you guys even care about my writings do you even want writings do you even read does anyone even fuck and read anymore or is it just

in vain

because the thing that terrifies me the most about trying to write anything

and by the way muriel thank you so much i saw that

an give to thank you so much man

but what terrifies me about

trying to write down anything and happy will reach it

is that

i see so much brilliant shit

that no one eives a fuck about

thank you so much dementch appreciate it add your name up i read so much brilliant shit all the fucking time blogs and all this stuff and i'm like

this does this needs to have more attention right

if i go in the middle of it of a fucking public square

and i start whipping my dick around i'll get attention

if i go on switch

and start yelling at people really loud and doing the mongol thing

i'll get fucking one point whatever million views

and wie mo

but when you read something truly unique

and truly fucking brilliant

thatuld deserves to command the attention of the entire fucking

world

on the merit of its brilliance and its insight

nobody fucking cares

nobody fucking cares

so

i don't even know what i'm writing for anymore i keep thinking i keep coping that my writings is where it's really at

that's why i'm focusing

that's what i care about that's what i'm doing it's just going to be my writings

i don't know

i don't know maybe this is better than writing right maybe this is better

maybe it's got to be multimedia of course it's got to be multimedia but

how much should i be focusing mentally on the writings

i don't know maybe less

maybe less

i've been feeling quite sentimental today

and the reason i've been feeling sentimental is because i've kind of been thinking about

an innocen mourning the death of the west

as the west is falling

and the west has fallen

the west has fallen

ladies and gentlemen

shut out those who understand the reference

but most of you don't

that's ok

but the west has fallen

and what is the wst

exactly

because there is clearly some kernel of greatness in the history of the west

it does exist

undoubtedly but thank you so much chris morla

no one ever reads coach

and it's the deepest stuff ever

you know i never told you guys this part of my life story why have i've alluded to it

what

there was a time in my youth

well i think i could be characterized

as a kind of wet westophile

i don't know i don't eve know i the fi i guess a europhile right but that kind of just sounds like a pedophile

but it was

you know a lot of white nationalists

well go on my telegram your hies you're anti white you just hate westerners and you hate white people

and you hate europe and

so sad

how fucking stupid these people are and just how little they know how poor judgment they have actually

because i haven't told you this part of my life

but there is a part of my life

where i

feel like

i did in a sense

fall in love with the west

i was coming from a middle eastern muslim background

like i was you know all about

stuff i can't talk about on youtube

you know shias lebanon you know

and that was my soul right and i didn't understand the west

not that i mean i hated western imperialism i hated american imperialism

but there's i didn't get it i didn't understand what is western culture what is the west right

what is the renaissance what is the

you know

this history

what is the western enlightenment

i was really in the dark about that and i didn't understand any of it

and then

i kind of started to get it

after i became a marxist i guess if you want to

theen i became interested in marxism

i started to kind of

understand what the west was all about

and

in a way i did fall in love with the west

with

not just the idea of the west or an ideal of the west but

this side of human history

this side of humanity which

i didn't really understand

right

it's a side of humanity it's a it's a tight it's a kind of

aspect of humanity that

even westerners don't really understand right they just kind of

take it for granted and live it

but even they don't know what exactly is going on in

it' not it's not western culture per se

in the sense of like m t v and all that kind of shit but it's just like

it's more

i don't know a as a as an angsty teenager i'm going to try to explain it this way as an angsty teenager

to me the west

was this kind of awkward you say you so much m i g modern west is an illusion there's an on earth

undiscovered west that is suppressed

to be unleashed at the dawn of multipularity and revolution

i agree with that

i go i're going to get into that obviously

but there's an aspect of the west

which

oh holy fok thank you so much for the raid jackson appreciate you

a

appreciate a man thank you

but there's an aspect of the west

which

trying to remember my train of thought i just kind of got

sidetracked for a second

oh okay yeah this is what it is so as an ansty teenager

and i started to understand this idea of the west

which i think nick land

mentioned before i don't really agree with him about it but it's

secession

right it's

splitting off

from your roots this is this is also zx

explanation of what

made the west different from the west rest of the world is that fragiza

the west has just this history of constantly

cutting your own roots

and

you know

negating yourself and negating your own roots and just

withdrawing

into some

void

of pure subjectivity pure substanceless

subjectivity

and there's something about that as an ansty teenager who's rebelling against his own culture and his own background and

his own identity

that i found to be

the idea that this had a history right

was just

very

interesting to me i guess

because on the one hand

it's a very sad thing to cut to your own roots

and

engage in this kind of

act of withdrawal right

but on the other hand

does that speak to some is this just evil that's happening is is the history of the west just evil

beginning from one the ancient greeks

split from the persian empire and withdrew into their greek city state enclaves

is that just

evil or is there something more to it

to that sucession

and i'm inclined to believe

that there's something more to it

and if you want to think about it in another way

think about the history of the middle ages and contrast it

with the history of islam

there was the west

western christianity and then

there was islam and then there was the byzantine empire

the byzantine empire and islam were these vast empires these vast land empires

the byzantine empire you could make the cases more sea based doesn't really matter

and then you look at the european west and it's just these

enclaves these

this patchwork of

you know

small politics just

like like a fucking million of them

right

and then you look at the typical structure of the

of western feudalism and it is this kind of

encla

right

it's it's a it's a fortress or a castle surrounded by walls and then the a monastery with monks inside

and you need to have this fortress to protect you from the hordes invading

you

so that the monks in the monastery can

proceed with the work of their solemn

contemplation

but what were those monks actually doing

i mean that in a metaphorical sense of course

what was the west doing

while it had to surround itself with the fortress because

the rest of the world looks at this

and it's just it's bizarre right

in the islamic world

or in the

russian world or in the the

you know the turk the turkic world i guess the mongol world

or in the inese world or in the indian world

everyone is just kind of running around conquering each other

and you know

you get conquered fair game that's hist it's the will of god it's the will of fate it's destiny

it's the mandate of heaven whatever you want to fuck and call it

there's no way to

stop this process and just be like no we want to just withdraw from

the tumultuous ups and downs

of

you know

of politics and statehood

and conquest

but this is exactly what the west

attempted to do

and its own history

in its own history

the west

attempted to withdraw

from this precise kind of

organic development of different policies

and develop some kind of inner soul some kind of inner being

instead of focusing on building these large giant expansive empires and building a sublime state and giving expression and form to some kind of real positive

material being out there

the west decided to say

well the western history is characterized by this kind of rejection this no

just like with the ancient greeks

and the persians

it's a no

we're going to build a wall

between you and us

and within these walls we're going to sit here

and

delve into some kind of

some other conflict

whereas the outer conflict is a conflict between armies and it's a conflict of

polities and states and empires

the greeks for example

we're participating in a conflict

of the soul

an inner conflict of the heart and the soul

and

it's

as if

this inner conflict

was the symptom

something else

and throughout history it always was right

because

we did the whole greek

history of the greek city states and all this stuff

it culminated

in the

ale the conquest of alexander right

and a return to the east and a return to asia

and alexander toward the end of his life was pretty much fully assimilated

into the persian empire into the empires of the orient

the cultures and civilizations of the orients in general by this time i mean alexander he was fully

you know um he was dressed in in persian he was

bringing back scholars and philosophers from india

he was absorbing and adopting

the cultures of the near east

the levant

and egypt and so on and so on

so

the that's where you can see what all of this

greek a lot what was all this greek philosophy stuff actually about

that's what it was right

so

the

as far as this

specific angle of understanding the history of the west

which is based on the developments of the inner soul and the inner world

right

one has to beg the question of why was this

not given its proper expression

in the history of the east

because the east

i had no time to spare for that kind of thing

because all of that was

being sorry all of that was made manifest in an outwardly way in the form of the

history of asian land empires

and real histories write of people and dumbs

changes of dynasties and battles and conquests and events of that nature

there was no real

prolonged

period of just kind of

inward inwardly

development that came at the expense

of the

of the necessities the material necessities of sustaining human life

so in a sense you could also look at it from i guess a post colonial lens

you could try to make the argument that the history of the west

is characterized by a kind of parasotism of the east right

the west has all this subjective freedom to dwell upon things of no substance

and of no real you know

a

that have no real concern

for the hither and thither of of

you know the real world

because in some kind of way they are able to take it for granted

this was evident at least very directly in the form of greek

slavery

right

when the when the greek philosophers and the greek

pinkers

of the classical period

they were only able to do well in this kind of immaterial and ephemeral

sphere of the soul right

more generally

because they had a lot of slaves to do the actual real work of

reproducing human life

are reproducing the conditions of the subsistence of human life

out in the fields so

the greeks did not have to focus all that much on the business of

realizing their humanity in the world

right so they were able to realize it

from within

that's a very direct

example of that

but

you also can see the history of western colonialism the european enlightenment where did europe

acquire the subject of freedom

with which to

abstract itself from any kind of determinate

civilization or determinate culture

or determinate ralily weth

in a more direct sense

colonialism

probably was a significant factor at the very least colonialism and western slavery

which

many people say things like okay everyone engages in colonialism it's not just the west

but

here's the difference

and again nick land writes about this in his early writings

it's called ant capital in the prohibition of incest

the difference with the history of western colonialism and the west more generally is this

separation that's created between the core and the periphery right

you have a corps of

the west where people are the west is living in the

western culture is

experimenting and whatever

and then you have the periphery

and there's this

clear very clear separation that's enacted

where

the periphery is only engaged with

through this filter right through the screen

and this screen is what allows

the extraction of raw materials and

people to take place

and there's thisjust this kind of

a fortress that's created just like in the middle ages if you want

whereas if you look at the history of asian colonialism or asian imperialism

there's no distinction between the corp and the periphery unless you're talking about the imperial capital

and the surrounding provinces

but beyond that i mean

you are looking at a unified civilization where

the most outer edges of the periphery are exerting some kind of direct

intercourse and influence

on the court right

the imperial court is absorbing right all these conquered peoples in some kind of way

all of their cuisines and cultures

by the way not from a distance where it's filtered through this kind of screen with which to

domesticated and whitewash it

it's like the cor also changes right

in asian imperial expansion

you have a dialectic that is going on

between the core the conquering civilization and the conquered right a dialectic happens where

actually both

change not just one

right but in the history of western imperialism or western colonialism

obviously there is a material reality of reciprocal dialectical change

but

this much is not acknowledged or at least it's

it's it's

hindered and its attempted

sorry it is subjected to attempts

to avoid it

god fucking damn it how do i fuck and save this

it is um

there are attempts to avoid it is what i mean to say

right

there's attempts to avoid this

because

the west attempts to preserve itself

or some kind of pure identity of

purity of of

of its being right and its being being the negation of being as heidegger would point out

it attempts to preserve this purity

even while it fundamentally transforms

itself through colonialism and through imperialism

so in western imperialism

you have a conqueror and you have a conqueror

the conquered

have to change and so on and so on

but the conqueror does not change

there is no fundamental

bike

transformation

of

you know

the

entire civilization

of the imperial corps that's on the basis of whatever country it invades or conquers

it doesn't matter right in the scramble for africa

it didn't really matter that brit

had conquered nigeria as opposed to

you know west africa

right

as opposed to that is in west africa sorry

conquered nigeria as opposed to

senegal or something right

britain did not change because of that nothing changed about britain because of that

britain's identity maintains its purity

whereas if you look at

the history of chinese imperial expansions

there is a change of the identity of chinese civilization on the basis of a reciprocal and syncretic change

after the conquest right and the same thing is true for russia

as well

so you're dealing with a situation in which

there is something unique about

not just western colonialism and western imperialism

but

the west in general which

again can be characterized by this

very bizarre from the perspective of the rest of the world

a

attempt to

give expression to some kind of

innermost reality

rather than outermost reality

o

and as much as we can

recognize or acknowledge maybe maybe

the end of western history right now with the emergence of multipolarity and so on and so forth

i still question to what extent

western history

has not a

concluded

has it really concluded

maybe it's in the process of concluding but

to what extent is there a dialectic between the west and the east

to what extent

are the two fates

completely intertwined

right i think that's the real question here

and

the real question is the

what is this excess what is this remainder of

your soul or pure spirit or whatever you want to call it

that the west tries to give expression to at the expense of material being what is that right or

pure substanceless subjectivity

as zizak

had like to put it

the beforehand

what exactly is that

you know i am a kind of a

accelerationist

an extremist thinker

in some some sense just instinctually

and intuitively

and i thought about something andright i thought about how

what if the really revolutionary thing to do

in a country like america or in western european countries

depending on where you are geographically

is to be so absolutely western

so absolutely and purely western

that one gives expression and gives rise

to the destruction

of the current form of the west

not to really destroy the west but just to continue this

this dialectrical process

g jak talks about

of the self negation and uh

self amputation

that characterizes the entire history of the west and novel western history

for example

do you really think

i'll give you an example of this

do you really think

that

nancy pelosi

is a worthy

representative

of the history of the west the renaissance the western enlightenment

um

you know ancient greece and so on and so forth i mean like

is that really

what the west has always been

or is there a greatness in the history of west

of the west

that the leaders of western countries

faile to give expression to right

now on the other hand

the far right

which somehow is cognizant of this fact

like the west it's the meam the chub jack meam the west has fallen right

the west has fallen

because we used to have you know michael angelo

and now we have you know the

we have leaders of the american government and military who are men dressed in dresses

and it's just this is what happened we went from the italian renaissance thank you so much bob wunter all humanity are full of live

our common bond is freedom

without freedom we have nothing thank you so much bob hunter i appreciate you it's on

thank you ma'am

but it's like we went from

we went from like the fucking

you know the protestant reformation

we went from this kind of like what is it actually called it's

it's the uh the northern european renaissance like in

northern germany which

extended into

the netherlands

if you go to an art museum you'll see a lot of paintings from that era

like

who's that fucking guy

alberic durer right

you go from this kind of

greatness of culture

and depth of culture

all the way to

now which is

which is what right clearly there is something missing

and the far right

superficially recognizes that

but the perspective from which they recognize that is completely backwards and wrong

the far right thinks that we are bereft of some kind of positive substance

that is preventing us from returning to the greatness of the west

we need to be you know

more in tune with

positive traditional

western culture

there is no but thank you so much to mentor

rome has fallen

eighty six twenty one eight three

okay

so

the problem with the far rights

diagnosis of the fall of the west and the end of the west

is that is just a crude and completely vain parody

of the east they're basically just trying to

orientalize the west in some kind of sense they're trying to make it as though

the tradit the renaissance the for example the italian renaissance

represented some kind of traditional

form

of

civilization

but it didn't

the renaissance was anything but traditional

the renaissance was this kind of violent teraror from the entire past

and from all of real substantive mediaeval

western history

and it attempted to utilize and deploy

the um human is this kind of uh sorry

the kind of the

arts of the classical period of ancient greece and ancient rome

in order to give expression to some kind of pure excess

of the soul or subjectivity or something of this nature

the renaissance was an escape

from any semblance of internal

positive being

and substantive positive reality

so this is why the far right gets it wrong they are trying to make it as though

the greatness of the west consists in something comparable to the greatness

of you know

the song dynasty the song dynasty

well that here's the difference

the song dnasty the greatness of the song dynasty it is the greatness of some kind of positive being it's the greatness and glory of the dynasty right

what

to speak of glory

in the history of the west it's a complete

it's a it's a complete falsehood

ro why because

most of the time when you see these trad larpers

attempt to simulate a sense of a

western glory they're just trying to kind of um

vulgarly reproduce

the philosophy of stoiciism

storry storicism

which permeated in the late

a roman empire

and in

um

you could argue not directly but you could argue like you could look at

ancient greese from that lens

like

the pure glory of the the roman empire or the fucking grip this is just lar

this has no bearing

this has nothing to do with what made any of those things great

from a historical perspective

is what i'm trying to say

and stoicism

which comes closest maybe

to some kind of aesthetic of the asian

asian empires

it's a deception right

stoicism is this kind of stillness

which

only appears similar to the objective orientation

of eastern civilizations

because it is a

devoid of lif

any kind of

um

any of the

any of the

instability and chaos

of the subjective soul

right

so thank you so much bobons whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster

and if you gazed long enough into an abyss

the abyss will gaze back into you

well thank you bob appreciate it

what i'm trying to say here is that

when it comes to the

this is what i'm trying to say right it's actually very fucking simple i'm going to simplify it

the reason a lot of trad larpers love to kind of larp

and

kind of aestheticize the glorious marcus au relius and

late roman empire and

the greeks with this kind of full through the aesthetic of stoicism

is because in the philosophy of stoicism just from a superficial perspective from the philosophy of stoicism

any expression of the subjective self

or of maybe this the inner soul

is repressed and it's repressed in the

for the sake of some kind of stillness of the soul some kind of stillness of subjectivity

when you think of stoicism you probably think of something like

devoid of emotional chaos and emotional

extremity

just calm right

and people may might try to mistake in this for some kind of asian

zen or some kind of asian

fatalism

but here's the here's the crucial difference

the asian

zen or the asian

fatalism

has a definite object in the outer world right

this is why western buddhism is retarded

because buddhism historically

has an object

it has an object correlate the object correlate

is some kind of big civilization some kind of big

ove

history some kind of big polity some kind of big state

or big you know

sublime object

so

the the eastern buddhism is

a type of uh

religion or philosophy

that just

fully delivers a subject to the object

but western stoicism

is not this western stoicism

although it bears some

superficial similarity

to the eastern and

mentality of kind of a

blindness to the subjective

the tumultuous subjective form

self and full deliverance

to some kind of stillness and

ll this and so on

western stoicism still

is self reflective

it means

it does not have an object

outside of

the most immediate and direct

expression of the soul and the self

stolicism is kind of like recursor

it's still an inward orientation

this stillness of stoicism

ofh

blindness or lack of regard for

sorry

i don't know why i'm

i got to sleep i'm just

just took a hot shower so

western stoicism

may

ah forgo

any kind of like

outward expression

of selfhood and the emotions and the subjectivity and so on and so on

but

it's still

has as its object

the self and the soul

and that's the crucial difference

if you want to put it this way and i you want me to like

simplify what i'm saying here thank you so much bob we are not necessarily doubting that god will do the best for us

we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be

ay bob

i really appreciate all the donations you're sending my way

but

you are schizo posting man you're just i don't know what you're saying

i don't

i don't get this right

and

you should chill man you should chill a little bit because this is some schizoshit right now

so to simplify it

for you

this is this wasll simplify it right

western stoicism is still about the individual

ok

wheres western sorry wheres eastern philosophy and the eastern mentality

still is about the collective

it's still about the social it's still about the communal right

that's what i'm trying to say

that's the fundamental difference

to simplify things

so when you see these larp these you know

these h trad larpers

who have statue profile pictures and are like the glory of the west

the roman you they are

engaging in a kind of miserable

a mockery of western greatness because this is not what has ever made

the west great right

that is just a very crude and poor

um

parody of eastern

eastern civilization that's not something that distinguishes the west

in particular right

so what is the west

the west is this kind of

and you know i wanted to include it in my mongol modernity video

which i probably will but

i want to change

i want to change

um

one's perspective

on

something like

the

european renaissance

just in the strict sense that i want to kind of

place this event in the light of some kind of

extremely extreme tragedy

and i think only when you can appreciate this tragical nature of western history

does it become possible

to appreciate the greatness and even beauty of the west

and it reminds me about

what specifically about the west

that i had become very mamuch

infatuated with

and h in a sense in love with

and it's precisely this kind of

acknowledgment of a tear and a cut

within the human soul

a kind of

see we have a human history

of states and polities and

large empires and so on and so forth right

but then there's this also this other history

of this extreme extremely tragical

oh

instability and

origin

within

the soul what is the soul by the way because i know i come sounding ambiguous here

all a soul really refers to

is

something

in its

let me see if i can

off the top of my head simplify this

i think there's something about what hegel says

the spirit is a bone

that i think

just

right now at least maybe if i thought about it for a few more hours i would change my mind but

i like this idea of a soul

as

the real equivalence

of the substance

the soul is what really

for example

wen we say the soul ofv a nation

what we really mean to say is

what that nation really is from the standpoint of eternity

not

some superficial qualities of the nation

or some superficial details here and there but

the real significance the real essence in some sense right

and i think what separates soul from essence

is that

the soul is

boundless

whereas an essence is merely referential

soul has some direct relation

to absolute being

good morning revolution

they use so much a mio for the five i appreciate you man

i think

if you want to be less metaphysical

when it comes to understanding

why it is said

that there is an immortality of the soul that says it's important to believe in the immortality of the soul

it's because

all it really means is that

what a person a given individual for example is

has some significance

for absolute being

that this person's life

means something

has some bearing

has some significance or at least

tells us something about

absolute be

right

it's not just

some kind of ah

temporary significance some this person was born and then later they died

and then who cares that's it

to say each individual has an immortal soul

means

that from the perspective of absolute being

that person

is not only unique

but it is a unique expression

of the absolute

like

think of it this way

to say the soul is eternal means it will go down

but thank you so much bob we're alsos

it means it will go down into the annals of eternity

right it will go down into the past for all of eternity

it will be remembered for all of eternity

that's what the significance to me

of the immortal soul is

that with that being said

the reality of the soul

which

is the object of western history in some kind of sense

is a reality that like the rest of human history

exists in some

ah

agony of some kind

in a state of some kind of agony

just like how the

egels world spirit

hegel's history wriight is in a state of agony because of all the conflict and wars and so on and so on

that

h

give form to it

so too

so to

does such a reality for the soul if you want

so too is that also something characterized by the same tumultuous and

see i'm being very careful in my words i don't want to call it chaos but

that same kind of

m

strife is what i'm the lord i'm looking for the same kind of strife

so shane jones in my chat right now

i couldn't help but noticing them

i think this is the example of a person who's just an inherently miserable

you know what i mean

oh you didn't catch that whate i said

i said they were a miserable

that's exactly what they are

and what i actually said was fatass

right and you didn't get me saying fadas but what i said is fadas

but they lived their life

uh in some kind of uh false

sceepticism and kind of false

yeah

i just wrote

finish my thesis theay nobody cares bitch nobody cares nobody cares

you wouldn't be here in my chat

if there wasn't something

about

what i'm saying that is making you profoundly insecure about your own world view

and her own sense of reality

and whatever the fuck that is i don't give a shitp

ok i don't give a fog

whatever that is

nobody cares about your input you sayh

you must be on drugs

yeah because off the top of my head i'm trying to

articulate using words that would be accessible to people

and would make sense to people

are really difficult

thing to just even think about let alone to talk about right

and for all the people who are retards in my chat going

how can you believe in a soul if you're a materialist

um

what do you think matter is you fucking retard you think matter is like some

like supreme substance like spinoza substance or some shit

or you think matter is like some

fucking like

no there is clearly

if you're going to call yourself amments it's so funny you call yourself a

materialist ok what is matter though

what is the matter

what the matter is

it's this or it's that or it's this or it's that ok so what is matter

as such

right

you can't talk about materialism

without acknowledging a soul

a soil is not some kind of metaphysical object

by the way

there's nothing metaphysical about the soul

it's not just some kind of like

you know some ghost or something that exists in reality it's

an aspect of reality

the one that is here we don't have to entertain any kind of

extra metaphysical or supernatural

um anything

right

like

i mean intuitively it's like someone you could listen to music and someone can be like

that has so much soul

and there now y materialist

it doesn't have sol

no clearly you just don't you can't participate

in

any form of communication worthy of a human being

it's like everyone understands what they're talking about when they say

this is a very soulful piece of music

and you want to close your ears and close yourself off to that because you're scared that you're going to believe in god again or some shit

but everyone else knows what's what

what that means right in ordinary language

that's the colloquial sense i mean that's what i'm talking about though right

it's not really controversial when you think about it in that way it's like

there's nothing shocking about what i'm saying

that is mediation through senses it is different

wait

so there's two stupid things you just said

a deaf person would not hear music

dude you know what

you should stop being a marxist or calling yourself a marxist and just

go forgive your parents or some shit

so first of all

there's two problems you just opened up

ok

do you think the soul of anything is not mediated through senses dam asked

and if you're trying to say that a soul is empirically reducible to the senses

i hope you don't make any music in your life because it's probably going to sound like diarrhea if you actually fucking think

that what makes music meaningful to people is something reducible to the senses

with which they

consume that music

what a miserable foalcking life you must falc and live

what an extremely miserable fuck in life you live

it so you're saying

that when someone listens to a beautiful song

that's just their senses

that's that's what you're saying right

wn you listen to a beautiful piece of music

all you're doing is just sensing something

and your senses

are telling you this is beautiful

okay

why are the senses

producing this coherent affect of beauty

a fucking movie

can have music

visuals

and maybe it's fuckin four d and they'll have throw spit water in your face

and someone can appreciate beauty in that

why is it that

multiple different senses can produce one coherent experience

of the sublimement of beauty

can you explain that if you're going to fucking reduce it to the senses

if you don't hear it it does not exist all right

yn

so you're saying blind and deaf people can't experience beauty

but you know it's even worse what you're saying

because blind and deaf people somehow still can experience

beauty

and they can't even sense

why isn it that beauty is the same

right

why is it that

the coherent sense of the sublime and of beauty

is the same

whether a song makes you is beautiful to do or whether a movie is beautiful to you there's one coherent sense of beauty thank you so much why the atheism became the most popular religious affiliation in america

as a nation we are forgetting the truth of the immortal soul

yeah

yaes so true

so true

they all lead to the brain whll the the brain is incredibly plastic

so clearly the brain is not the one responsible

even if it's a necessary

aspect of the expression of the soul

all i'm trying to say is that what i think is beautiful about the history of the west

is that

this is where i see

the inner soul

trying to give sense and trying to give

expression

to its own agony

right

the quintessential

western i don't care muriel the quintessential western

composer a sided siga

the quintessential western artist to me is beethoven you know beethoven who is just

hissed all the fucking timeon

his music reflects

this extreme the

extreme agony

to me that

is a prism

and a lens through which the entire history of the west

can be understood it's just this pure it's not a history of sublim of of

glory and greatness

as is the history of the east

but it is the history of some kind of inner agony and inner and

oh my god inner totally fuck mohavei thank you so much man

and some kind of inner

strife

which never finds resolution and never finds

any lasting peace

and i think when you purify this aspect of the west

and the history of the west when you purify this

so absolutely

and so

m

so intensely

i think

you directly arrive back at the east

right

will you purify the essence of the west

when you purify this excess remainder that is just

the pure

strife and agony of the soul

you forebowe

the glorious history of the orient

to me

and vice versa

now what is that history

i think

this is what i was going to talk about in my mongol modernity video

i think that history

has been lost

i think something happened

with the mongols who united the world

before globalism

before the united nations and before

a the world economic forum

the mongol empire did succeed in basically uniting the world

and that doesn't mean that they united every corner of earth

but it means they gave rise

to an absolute

like a worl

an absolute one humanity world

such that if they were to encounter

the new world re of africa

they had one sense of one universal humanity

that

that is somehow able to survive encounters across cultures

so the end of history

ended with the mongols

in some some sense

geng is khan

initiated the end of history

not by the way

because of the long development

and conclusion of the dialectic

between sedentary and nomadic peoples that was that has been going on since the beginning of time by the way

the mongols completed this and the end of history ended after the mongols

but i think

e

was never properly

understood

what was missing there was the element of understanding

and so immediately

when the mongol empire broke up into the various asiatic land empires

some missing

missing

listen

from this original

conquest

still haunted

the history of the east

that is why

the asian empires

in some sense did experience a kind of stagnation especially the ottoman empire

a stagnation compared to europe at least

where they became content with having arrived at the end of history

except one exception

in the history of the post mongol

ah

world

was of course

tamerlin

or immor

timer

h

fashioned himself as the descendant

of geng is khan

wanted to restore the mongol empire

and

reclaim this universal humanity of the mongol empire

because especially now that it had an islamic twist because he was also

muslim

and he was also drawing from the history of islam

so timor was a real apocalyptic

figure

and he wanted to restore

the mongol empire

and he failed immediately almost

so something was lost

and my thesis of

mongol modernity is that

somehow symptomally

it was europe

this to me is a very beautiful thing

it was europe that

became the kind of

collateral damage of this

the humanism of the italian renaissance or of the european renaissance or even the protestant reformation

depending on how you look at it

was a displaced

expression

of the universal humanism and universal humanity

that was created

by the mongol empire

so it's almost like a it's like a greek tragedy in some kind of sense right

two things that you think are unrelated

somehow become connected

in a way that

was completely unintentional

and yet speaks to the truth

about books

where does the idea of humanism come from right this idea that there is one universal humanity

that is united not just

ah by spirit and by the soul its soul

but also united in terms of its material reality its material substance

that comes from the mongols

objectively

and it comes from europe subjectively

and the two are part of one continuous

historical reality

good morning revolution thank you so much amiria appreciate it

you show you with tme

you know what i'm sick of the dumb shit that's going on in the fucking chat

there is a retard in the chat

who is like

they're not just dumbing down the entire fucking

a learning environment in is falk and stream

it's dumbing me down

because

the reason i'm pausing is because i'm thinking about the stupid retarded shit they're doing in the chat

and i'm like

it is so stupid in comparison

to the actual topic i'm trying to fucking flesh out here it is so fucking stupid

ut get in my v c and let's talk about your retarded

contention

otherwise shut the fuck up and stop debating in the fucking chat about it

holy fox

s like i don't even want to share this shit with you guys

if you're not even go to fucking pay attention

and you're going to get into a fucking retard argument some dumb fuck everthing just like everything just like the mechanical no that's called mechanical materialism you retarded stupid buck go back and fucking read marks and angles and stop harassing people in the fucking shot about it

yeah mechanical materialism

you're coping about mechanical materialism it is a completely bankrupt

view of the world

you can't

lay claim to fucking the empirical sciences because they don't substantiate the mechanical materialist view

the mechanical materials view is philosophically absurd and bankrupt

it is inherently contradictory

and ill i'll going to tell you why

because if you're a mechanical materialist

you're basically saying everything is caused by some simpler base substance of some kind

so you're basically just fucking admitting

that every single thing you're typing in the chat of my chat live right now

is the exact causal reaction of some kind of fucking series of base chemicals

so you're basically saying i'm not typing in the chat right now because i'm a responsible agent

who is making an argument using reason and logic and shit i'm just fucking doing this because

i have some fucking puppet

i have some fucking ventriloquists sticking their fucking hand up my fucking ass forcing me to fucking type all of this shit as a direct

chemical reaction to the fucking environment around me

ok so

it's just an inherently

it's not even worth entertaining

ok

it's not even fucking worth entertaining

period

that's what mechanical materialism is

you're basically saying i don't take responsibility for any of the fucking things i'm saying

because it's all the result of chemicals so why even argue about anything

what's the fucking point we're all just chemicals anyway

and it's not like anything has meaning

it's stupid

it's infantile form of atheism

which is basically trying to make the point that we don't need to rely on

some kind of supernatural explanation for the we get it ok no one's saying that either

but your understanding of matter and the world and material being

isn't exactly up to par

with anything that could be considered worthy

of the

treasures of mankind and history

caank

so i'm sick of this dumb fucking argument going on in the chat

and i don't yeah it's like stupid shit

you know

i'm trying to understand the west east divide here

and if you if you if you need akn spell out you know why this is an important fucking topic

why do westerners have an aversion to china why do they have an aversion to russia oriental despotic

dictatorships

above and beyond the propaganda why right

because there's this view

that

those asiatic and oriental countries

have no regard for the purity of the soul and the purity in the sanctity of life and all this kind of shit they don't have the subjective freedom we have right

they're harsh they treat human beings like robots and will not let you walk through my mind with their dirty feet

thank you bob hunter

appreciate it

what is white nationalism what is the essence of that what is the essence of the white identity even

the essence of it is basically like

you know

we

represent the purity of the soul

and other people with their loud music

and harsh ways and the way they just

don't care about animals and in china

during the yulin festival they even eat dogs and they're just so cold and heartless and we need to huddle up and get warm together in between these fucking walls here and masturbate the fucking anime

and and have anime wafoes

and be comfy and cosy

while you know we take refuge from the brutality of the outside world

because we are dwelling within the purity of the soul

and in our fucking nostalgia for nineteen nineties culture

and fuckin blockbuster

and shit

that's what it is

right

so

it's like this

but the reason that exists

it's because the west does

maybe at least

give unique expression

to something just like the east does there's an east west dialectic

and what i'm interested in terrogating is that if we're on the precipice

of the fall of the west

and the end of the west as we know it

first of all why is that

second of all

what implications does this have

for history

why is the west coming to an end

the west is coming to an end i think

oh my god were thank you so much paper on appreciate the twenty

for a similar reason alexander kojev

or francis fucuyama arrived at the notion of the end of history

the west is coming to an end

because it has found its object

finally

it has found its object in universal humanity

and what is the truth of universal humanity the truth of universal humanity is multipolarity

the west has found its object

that is why we are turning into a fascist

dictatorship

because we're trying to continue to preserve

the tumultuous and vain

strife of the inner soul

to prevent being delivered

do this

new red sun in the sky

rising from the east

that compels all of us all of universal humanity

three

is the conclusion of anglo saxon metaphysics

because it's because instead of accepting

the imminence of contradiction

they dispose contradiction as many different

many different

anglo

you know

anglo words right

many different mechanical worlds instead of one world one being

that is does not obey any kind of mechanical laws

i don't think the sun will rise from the west

but i think the greatness of the west

we'll live on

no longer in a geographic form

the west will be

once again great

win the west

becomes east

and when east to mordern b right thank you so much rist appreciate you

what does it mean for west to become east by the way

it means

the last great act of greatness

as far as the west is concerned

it's to give way

to its own destruction

but this specific giveing way to its own destruction

entails an insight

only the western civilization

can bear

to have

it doesn't mean simply give up living give up being human no

it means give way

it means if you will

ah to put it maybe in christiological terms

acknowledge the crucifixion

and then the resurrection and so on

give way

in as

active resignation

to the destruction of the weste

and this giving way

which will produce

finally produced the apocalypse

that we've been waiting for

mean eschatologically literally right

and out of this apocalypse

the people of the west can salvage and be reborn

in a completely new way

western history is coming to an end

because the west has exhausted

it's

it's not that the development of the soul has come to an end or that the avelopment ending of terminator three then

thank you so much the king

no actually no in terminator three

well

no maybe in some sense but

when i say resignation it's a revolutionary act

what does the resignation actually amount to by the way

it's a christological act

it amounts to an acceptance for example that

he died for our since

just like how

you can resign yourself to the acknowledgment

that christ died for our sins and he wiped all sin away

sorry all of the debt away

active resignation toward the destruction of the west means

one acknowledges

not only passively acknowledges but

gives expression in the positive sense

to an acceptance and

bthright

acknowledgment of the death of the west in the positive active sense

like we are ready for the new future ahead

building the new future the post western future within the west

that's what this resignation amounts to that i'm speaking about

and the post western future is a mythical future

it's a future for the people

will test their metal

and really

mak themselves

the people

out of chaos

not specifically america and the american civil war two point zero

not

really e're up

europe will probably remain europe

because europe

's not really post

historical

its europe is not really the true west

it's just

it's both the west and it's also something else

k

europe is not just the west it's also franco germania and some

determinate civilizations and so on and so on

but america is just the west

is the difference

at every moment of greatness

ofh

western history

there has been a conclusion

of triying to preserve the purity

of this

this kind of emancipatory moment

like this secession this

self negation

as the founding of a new historical era

a new threshold of the forgetting of beings

his high degree would call it

but now maybe for the first time

may be for the first time since

the conquests of alexander

will

the end of the west sorry will this

new historical era of greatness

mean

surrender

to the positive and objective consequences

which means

an acceptance of the positive being

at the end of the road

the west is

a question

it's a question

and asia has always been the answer

but without the question

what would you have of the answer

let's

acknowledge

that

there would be no communism

or at least there wouldi be no marxism

without the west

without the west there would be no lenin

without the west there would be no

maternity

i mean maybe there would have been

but in our timeline of human history there would not have been

the resolution of the dialectic of east and west

is what we are now experiencing

the west represents

the night

of the world

as hegel would put it

right that the night of the world of the soul

that you see when you look in the black

of someone's eyes

and

this precipitates

a final dan

of the universal

human history

which weill finally begin

the true history of humanity will finally begin

with the end of the west

and

in a sense the end of the east

i

as well but

both end in completely different ways

i don't

no if i believe in any kind of

geo metaphysics of

plarity

right

is the west

the west because of some

sacred

geosophy or something

i don't know

i don't know

maybe the west in the east is just

an analogy

some kind of historical contingent arbitrary historical process of

moving westward

but also i doubt that

i think there is a geosophical

elements

the distinction between the west and the east li

west probably does represent some occult

the direction west i me

probably does have

a deeper significance just like east

but

pest my i know pestemime is in a show queue

are you know what perston mine

if you annoy me i'm kicking you out and immediately

go ahead

hello

yes

okay

i'm very upset

with today's stream

i thought that i would look

today's stream before going to sleep instead it made me very angry and upset

are why are you angry and upset

i'm so crazy upset and angry because

you were slandering

all of the people

who don't deserve to be slandered you're saying that plato is a lazy person who has other people do his farming

tru

thing that beethoven was mean and upset all the time

he was

but that

both of those things are not true

and i forget even what other things you said

that made me slato had slaves and i'm pretty sure he didn't wipe his own ass

prety sure you had people do it for him

i know you're making it up

no playo wouldn't have slaves

he did wipe his own a

ok well he did have slaves i did not know he was a very nice guy

eight

so remember the ancient ancient greece was a slave society where the majority of people were slaves and only very few had the time

be philosophers

it's like that other sidy you're n you

and was this beethoven and then beethoven was angry all the time he was upset all the time

beethoven you said oh you listen to beethoven's songs it makes you

uh

you know

upset and irritable

that's not what i fucking said youre put that's not in my mouth

because i said its and wrote i said his music is very tumultuus and emotional which is true

good

it represents the storm of passions

and emotions including and especially anger

are you crying over this

no i have a i just have a cold plato love the rest thank you quietppreciate but you're being very unreasonable i think

because

don't you understand that when plato went to his friend's house and his friend was very wealthy and had

slave children

and he said

to his friend

that the slave children even though they were children and also had no education because they were slaves and you don't educate slaves

but then he had the slave come over

and

do math problems in the sand remember

so what

remember on the conference when so wanted the math problem i wasn't

now it's not like slaves were just

thought of is incapable of thinking so a lot of slaves were

actually

forced to do mental labor so i don't know what you're talking abut yeah like a soap was a slave

but everybody listened to a slap

so what is your point

but i'm just very i'm very sick and tired of all this

and if i say leftist people aren't going to get it

but let's know let's know all these weftust people

so pesto always complaining about everything saying oh it's just because of blah blah blah but they don't even understand that people have like

adherences to to thought

above everything else and i would just want to understand

what the hell are you even talking about you said oh this is compared to the

to the nice stuff in the east

what when do i say that

you said you said you compare all of this to the

to the east

what is the east so it's what's the eastern culture because i'm going to tell you

there is such a thing as a

universal

in all of all of humanity

participates in this one universal history

ok well for example maybe theyn contradict me here for example i think there's a reason why the west

was probably the only civilization that cared about actually

making figurative statues of people with exact anatomical detail

is there i'm open to being proven wrong is there any other example of that this is not true

so what other civilization

you you're trying to say right now that

are you referring to

you're referring to like

i'm assuming greek greek yeah for example greek art was extremely figurative and

it was figurative as it soways egyptian it was figurative and realistic egyptian egyptian art was not realistic

egyptian art

was also realistic in sculpture

but with not really result youslt it's one for

no i'm going to knowo the differences difference between roman and greek statue

note is that greek statue is not one to one proportional

to the body doesn't matter the green statue

is trying to give expression to some kind of like

universal man whereas egyptian statues are of people who are egyptian wearing egyptian clothing

greek statues are just naked people so i don't really see back to many of the egyptian statues

are naked and in fact

give me one give me one

did you know hows that they would put clothes on a lot of the statues sometimes anyway so you're not even supposed to see them as naked

but

you're not supposed to see greek statues as naked

may you are supposed to se your ressues as you w be geting in with you greek statue thk you it's not sosed to have clos on but sometimes you're saying the greeks would have some of the statues had close as part of the rocks anyway

but you're saying that the greek statue was one to one proportional to the body parts on a human or the i'm not saying that i'm saying body re ill human shut the fuck up i'm saying the greeks tried to give expression to some kind of

inner reality of universal humanity

pure universal humanity

without any discm what separates greek statues is that the greek statues are in a

process of motion

is what separates some from roman and egyptian statues

ok in order to do this

they had to have it oh my goodness

they had to have it where it wasn't proportional but it looked like a real person if you were looking at it but if you act so that level of realism that no so no one else really cared about that level of realism

even though they could have done it

the chinese could have done that the indians could have done that they didn't really care

because that's not what they thought art was

so

i'm not saying that means the west was superior i'm just meaning there's clearly a divide between the west and the east and this is just one of the examples

i don't i don't think that the objective

in any of the great statue makers of the

classical period

was to make things look like real life but to

not to give the process of art

no i wanted to give expression to something individual

and subjective

at the expense of that that w know n was isolated specifically

dude

i disagree with you

why do you disagree with

because they were not trying to give expression to something that was subjective

they were trying they were trying to unlock the universal they were trying to yeah they were trying to unlock the univers in thug the yeah the universalal

the universal through subjective contemplative mediation

there's a difference

i don't see how contemplateve mediation has to be subjective at all

because it's not like contemplateive mediation is inherently subjective

wells you know maybe i would agree with you because they started putting these little descriptions on the plaques in the met where the art historians tell try and tell you what stuff is about and it's always something about penises

so maybe you're right there are people who can be wrong

you know meditating on our pesto pesto

what i'm trying to say

is that

when you try to make it when you when you try to give expression to the universal

through contempltive mediation

rather than through the universal as it objectively

is universal rather than as it is mediated

they are thought of as universal

that is what the universal is for a subject

not a for objective being

i think you're being a crazy german idealist again i think you're being a crazy german idealist self negator whatever guy again

because i'm using words you are not comfortable with know because you're trying to tell me

that the universal cannot be understood by people

no i can't you know

that's only one way to understand it

the universal

there's and there's also the imminent understanding of the universal with regard to itself

that's what hegel calls the world spirit it's how the universal is actually understanding itself

and realizing itself

in actual world history

not just people thinking about what it is subjectively

ok but

i understand this

this little ldgeist

's something that people have no ability

to consciously impact

and well that they are theyre obviously consciousness does play a role in impacting it because consciousness is literally

like

the middle term

because you realize self consciousness is

participating as far as hagle is concerned

consciousness participates in the realization of

deveolt geist or of spirit or of mind

so conscious is literally part of the what is thing what is the ability of an individual

what's what you're really trying to say is caught

consciousness does not stand above the totality

of history which it doesn't

it's just part of it

it can affect it not only affects it it is participating

in it

it is not only participating in it is like

one of its

one of its subvision saying or is it's one of its classifications consciousness is one of the

classifications or categories of history itself

according to avil

haes

i don't

like this hegel stuff

because

like i've spoken to you before

where nobody else was

why do you have to say you don't like handles stuff why can't you just like

express your disagreement

because my disagreement is that i think

because you think i'm i am go think your problem is that i get my newspapers from hagel and not you that's your fuck problem i think that no you want you want me to be like

depends you a thing it to see he was an influencer

you see agel as an influence and you like oh you listen to hagel

mm

why do i have to listen to someone why can't you just like in with what you disagree with

i'm going to tell you what i disagree with right now

is that what you want

yeah' going to do it how about that how about that all right i'm about to tell you what i disagree with ok do it

you don't want me to

up

yes i do just falk and do it

all right well

this hegel stuff

i really don't like it ok huz

because i think in all this hagel stuff is trying to imply

as though people within the universe

are incapable on their own

as individuals

of understanding the universe

and in understanding the ordering principles behind the universe and i even think that some of these people

take it too far perhapss you not mself tot too far on the individual has the power of understanding

but here's the thing the power of understanding doesn't limit itself to the individual according to hagel for hagel

the understanding is also something that is imminently

ah given expression in human history by the the

the mine

right

the mind

for hagel he's

talking probably about the mind of god at this point

but it's not the mind of any one individual it's the mind of some kind of

super individual

a reality which he for hegel is

universal being

in my opinion

has

as an opponent of

you hagel people

i think that this is a way for you hegel people

to pass on responsibility for your own thouushands n would want to collect too has min here's the fucking difference regardless of what you or i right now think

china is a country right

if you stop thinking china is a country

will it stop being a country

i think even if china stops thinking china is a country

i don't care

ok

so china is a country

yeah

okay

so it's not that i'm responsible for china being a country china is clearly a country

even up regardless of what i think

so i'm not absolving myself of any responsibility at all

i'm just acknowledging that reality doesn't end with me all how uch ours this is not to explain how li this is not the process of thos you're just a knowowledge country that you ca never seen exist ous a countrym we cannot over this is not di thought that changes the world house

this is not

any kind of deep thought that i what t thought changes of the world

what deep fough for example if i were to draw a square in the sand in front of a seven or eight year old slave boy in ancient greece

and i nobody a nobody cared about your function squares nobody caresbot your dumb squares o

but cause

no matter what i do with this square

all right there's no subjective way out of it

there's no two ways of doing it

right there is no

you know yes there is you i literally tred to do it

i liveed you frailed no no i did it

using fucking algebra

and you said that's not allowed so i had to like you made these random rules i di't use out the rational number

it's a square root of two it's an irrational number you can't do it using that meth i did use algebra and i did it six years didn't even do it

yes i did i use the algebra and i very muches this is able to what's a square root of two

what

what's the square root of two

a i need sell the i need a pen and paper

oh my god

what's wrong with having a pen in paper

no you can just ok just write just write your answer on a on a paper

to that

to the fiftieth decimal point

alright

why does it have to be the fiftieth decimal point

because it's it's a long enough decimal point

and by the way why does it have to be two

why does the square why is the square

have to have one as the variable of the length why couldn't it be like a number that you could find the square root of

which is what i actually fucking did

when i fucking did the algebra for it

i did fucking use a number that without any complicated math you could find the square root for

like it like off the top of your head

and you rejected it because he said oh you're not actually doing it you're just doing math and i was like ok

so that ok so you there is different ways you can't do it with any number

yes you can

n know with what's the square root of or what's the square root of four

the square root of forur is

two times two is four

yeah so all you would have to do is fucking make

each fucking side have

to

okay but then you're just then you're just assuming that this you know

rule is correct but then you can't do it with a one in a two square even though the slave guy yes i sd ies i n s did it with a one and i guess i could i could yes i can i could very weakily double the square whatever fucking

length it is it's called algebra it's not hard

not the length of the square that yeah yeah the doubling of the fucking square yeah whatever

you can't even do that with any number

all right p yeah i can though that's the thing anyway so nowre's my other story what is this whole eastern

thing anyway you said there's a like a dialectic and you said also which made me very upset

you said

which is what you said earlier

which is what

apparently is a ziza hagel person thing to say

which is what you said today on your stream

that the west is characterized by self negation

yeah

that's true

cutting

that dougan also agrees with me about that

um

the west

or heideger the west the forgetting of being

be

the

cudding

from the separation the secession

has why the fines western history why are you saying that all of these you know people on facebook all of these like

teenagers on facebook sharing like

you know vapor wave

edit videos and fonk military wolljack edits and so forth

ur being in know

you you know

irrational and so on and they don't know what they're talking about when they say that they're

the inheritors of western civilization because they're posting this just it's because they're trying to do what hitler did which is

crudely emulate

what are highegreen zizac doing

what are they crudely emulate literally nazis

what are they emulating them

hitler

a k a

then the nazi shit is when you're trying to crudely and impotently emulate the substance of eastern civilization

without having it

it's almost like

you want to have a what you say it's like it's like wanting to have a dig when you have no dick that's what it is what's the substance of eastern civilization

the determinate and positive being of a common

community socis and civilization

if you're in china or india or persia or whatever like

that is a real unity of a people like that is very real it's like intuitively real

it's real regardless of anyone's feelings

the west can only create a unity of people based on a unity of subjective

accordance or feelings there's no objectives a lot of people in a lot of asian countries especially like india

who would be able to give you examples

of people they know who feel

otherwise yes but they but even whatever feeling they have otherwise

they're doing it while being caught with indefinite

commmunities and socio so if there's

ethnic separatists or something

it's always a group it's always a collective it's never just the pure individual abstracting themselves

from the totality of the context that gives rise to their

ability to subsist and exists

constitute themselves

and you're saying that this is this is the modernity

is what turns people into

no adami's it's acts well not only modernity it's the whole history of the west

beginning with the greeks

but i think that there is

a real

you know

not so much of an understanding

of trying to say that

something is like a

the's like that

indian

vortex or an indian logos or something and there's a chinese vortex and a chinese logos and a

turkish one and ethiopian one and whatnt

i think this area is so crazy

there is

i think this is very crazy wi is it crazy

i think you're being so crazy and what about

all of the logos basically just refers to the logic of civilization what's crazy about that

they say they have different logic of how they relate individuals to the collect it can't be a different logic there is that's creen there is crezy there is persians

clearly are there all expressions of

the same logic you're saying the're say persans persian

the persian civilization is the same as the chinese one

no i'm not saying that so what's the difference about them

there's there's a different culture of course

but i to say that like the culture comes out of some

you know

collto is not just a different cultural of the completlys differently logic

there's a completely different logic of how those civilizations reproduce themselves

otherwise the different cultures would not be reproduced over thousands of years

they aren't reproduced over thousands they are the persian em the persian very much change persian civilization

has always been different from chinese civilization

period ok the persian civilization i used to give you a bunch of socialism that were you know terrifying fire worshippers and now

except for some people i know

nobody thinks they're fire worshippers and i do i worship fire

what the hell

yeah

but the look besides that besides that

why are you admitting to being a majus in front of your audience you're going to lose subscribers

i don't care right but what i'm basically trying to say is that i think that you're and there's still a continuity look malark there's still a continuity you don't think when fucking

you don't think when the iranians are giving fiery passionate speeches magbar mrika you don't think there's some fucking ah

zorostrian mysticism there of course there is

you don't get that you don't understand anything

mao

your being

very scandalous right now no i how i being scandalous oh my goodness i recognizing the continuity of persian civilization

i think that this is likeca this is likeca

what's it called like a

what's the name of it

like an anthropology type thing

what's wrong with fireworship can you explain

what you

oh my god

because hese's pagan

number one

h

not really

not truthful at all

you're literally saying oh my god like i'm going to worship fire

well it's not really worthhipping fire it's just venerating fires like

an expression of a divine cleansing element

it's an idol

they can worshipping you're worshipping fires like ause who are going to want a rodtree and this is my this is my soans are not agin they're not considered pagans by islam they're not considered pagans

a worship one god

they're monovious

being a monotheist doesn't mean you're not a pig

if somebody just worshipped you know

a golden calf inside of beso pes have you turned doesn't mean bes thoug you've turned reason into an idol

but hos reason is provable

but it's an idol you're admitting it's an idol aren't you

it's not an idol because it's provable how do you prove it

fier is also provable it exists

fire exists but the say that what

you're going to say fires god no i can disprove that he said that who said fire is god no one said that

okay

why are you going to worship something wait how do you prove its reason reason to me

i did prove reason to you remember we did the shapes

that's not proving reason

move me reason as such

one universal reason proved to me that not as instance

of so called reason proved to me reason itself

pro but you even exist in a reasonable universe the prove it prove the res it alls the w universal reason prove

universal reason as a something not an abstraction as that's literally what civilization is a process of

crusing

of proof so prove it give me one proof of reason that's not an example of reason

but is the reason

what is the identity of reason as such give it to me i cannot

prove to you y exact

they in fact move to you in words because this is your problem

as a hegelion

and as an anthropologist and as

go morning ca you morning

yeah

and as a pervert

this is your problem

in that you're trying to say that things are defined by what we understand them as

in language and so forth and as these you know very shallow metaphors

and it's okay so what do you want you told me

so prove it

prove to me what reason is you said you can't use words then use something else

ok so

let's get our microsoft pane up here

no i want to see what universal reason is

not an example of it with a square

is clearly a square does not exhaust universal reason

i want the exhaustive proof

of universal reason as such

give me its proof

prove to me it exists

it is hard for me to try and prove to you

that reason exists when you won't accept the answer

that

anything other than reason would be un reasonable and cannot exist

just begaus so how do you know that just because it's on reasonable means it can't exist

because we live in a perfect universe and you cannot show me anything that exists that is unreasonable

that doesn't why does that

preclude

the ability

or something to be on reasonable that also exists just because you haven't seen one yet

n because if i do see something

that to me

is not reasonable

is not in line with the

rational

plan of the universe which happened to people in history like to kepler

if you were to show me something

that

violates what i understand the rational plan of god to be

then obviously

it's me who doesn't

understand yet

hew

r so that's just you not understanding

but what point you what point what point you am point you come up to an understanding of it at what point do you sayor nothing else at what point do you say uncle and say

that i'm wrong about this necessary identity between being and

reason

hold on

i know what point can you admit that it's not necessarily true that

something existing means is rational

hold on houss

can you point to me something that exists and is not rational

i can't prove a negative can i

look

even if i couldn't prove to you that there exists something that's not rational so you admit i'm correct no i don't hey no i don't well i don't admit you're cut up with how shut up shut up

i'm saying

how do you know

unless you're resorting to some

self contradicting empiricism

that nothing can exist without it being rational

well how do you know something can exist

and also be irrational

how do you know that can't be the case

how do you know there can't be something that exists that's irrational

even if there's nothing that you know of that exists that's irrational

how do you know that it's impossible

based

likes monat is a so much ress how reduction is contradiction this is the basis of laroutis order i don't get this beautifvers stuff

there must necessarily be laws to the universe

and in order for other things to exist in the universe

they must follow the same laws that we follow as they also exist in the universe

how do you know

because heus

otherwise

we wouldn't live in the universe

we would all be living in separate universes with separate laws and it wouldn't even

be any way to understand that at all so why do you make the connection to reason

reason is only the process

that youre describe is only the process

by which i'm understanding the universe

through reason

otherwise i am existing

as an animal

an animal only a

understand what you do in really that again to whatther and onll se you is bs earth and a let's repeat that again what to you is reason

honestly has

when i try and learn things about

you know

the laws of

of life

try to learn about reason you know

you explain to me what reason is

what's that

can you explain to me what you think reason is

yeah

so like you get like

reasoning is like that the process ok us

's the process of what's the process in your mind

as your

understanding

isn't that cognition the as you're understanding the laws of the universe so reason is just cognit

reason is

yeah i guess it's like cognition

but let's not say for example let's say for example if we have

one square

and then we we draw a

we draw like a reason is not ggnition it's not cognition

well you're just you're doing all these word games with me i don't know what this go on is

you're bringing me all these words but i'm not a word type guy i'm a shapes type person

you're a shepe guy so what are you going to

you can't explain to me using ent geep fucking talking about squares and making squares

let's do triangles next

and i the fucking through triangles

you don't why you trys because you hate so you're saying you're saying

this is ok do you think it's reasonable you think easterners didn't do shapes do you think if you understand that ilt is he call the al some as an arab person ma st up shut up do you think it's reasonable

to be in a conversation with someone and then say

i'm not a word guy i'm a shape guy sorry i've exhausted my fucking dialogue options i just spakn shapes do you understand that this self negation stype type stuff

it comes from these

people

pour

what some people self describe themselves

as word cells

have you met these people

they are the most evil people

they reject the world they reject the whole universe

ino favor of making crazy word things in vaping

all right hahis

and i'm what're shape but shape is an arbitrary continuity of space

hah

no you're incorrect

ss shape is just

the sheep is just no haking

a shape a shape is like this visual

hermanmusic tool

to give expression to the abstraction of

things like

continuity

no you're being yes so why why do shas have a privilege significant shapes shapes are not

space they don't occupy space

number one

spa shpes there are spce shapes

shapes are not spatial number yes they are number three shapes are not defined by points

the number four shapes are not defined by lines connecting points so what are shapes defined by explain

don't give me sa re you det find but

shapes are defined by motion

and this is what the greeks understood and this is what most people i know' explain that all right i'm interested explain how shapes are defined by motion

'll ap

i'll give you the chance to explain yourself

in order to arrive at a shape

there must be action

to create it

a circle can only be created by circular action there is no other way to create a circle

so what is square action

there is no square action

so how is the square e bsking shaded

by the division of the circle

and by actions

taken upon the circ

okay

m

this

just out of curiosity what motion produces the circle according to you i agree with youre saying bircular action creates a circle what is circular action

the greater cular alection is

the greeks understood it in a more narrow tate

you you rotate

something

it's a rotation

what about moving in one direction

i'm sorry has but if you move in one direction for a long time

it will eventually become a circle

the greeks did not know that

no they didn't they thought the earth was a fuckying dome that you could

you are incorrect because the greeks were the first to discover the roundness of the earth and in fact

the actual they thought it was round to the extent that it was a dome they didn't fulking believe no they thought it was a sphere

no they cald prove it was eayer give me as the evidence they thought it was a sphere give me evidence they thought it was a sphere

ok

so they had a greek man

and he went to africa

ok

i'm going to shut up du that i don't want to hear this well you're just asking me for proof that no i'm asking you because i consulted the evidence

the ancient world thought

the earth was circular yes but not

not a sphere it was like a dome

no they thought it was feicle

i've never seen evidence of it

he went to africa and he to the s i don't want to hear your falking long stories i don't care

well i don't get an interesting story actually and if you listen to my story then you would become educated in the ancient greek people to know i want to talk more about the i want to talk more about

uh shapes

but this is about that's the shut up

you know it relates to shapes in a really nice way

o no i don't care i don't care

so it' squiring time you ok ok so a circle the longer you keep interrupting my shot a circle to the end so ok

so the longer it's going to be for me to get to the end of my story the more you keep interrupting my snow i don't we're not saying we're not going to hear this falking story i don't care about

ok

so a circle

is the ultimate shape and even a straight line

it's just a moment of a circular motion

and that's also because the greeks

believed in a circular sense of time

where everything is just an eternal return

that's not true yes it is

time's not a circle

well the greeks thought it was

no

yeah they did they didn't believe it in your time they thought it was a circular

so all may i get that right

circular view right the sunwheel and all times not linear and do in do european culture with the sunwheel i get it

so long

all shapes are derivatives

you're being terrible to me

all shapes are derivatives of the circle i get that

but don't you think that a shape

is still real if it's not a circle

it's a square shape

wors that it' tell yes i shake

listen a square is real because it's the result of

dividing the circle

what does that look like in terms of motion

es so you take you take the circle right

in terms of motion

mmhmm

and in terms of motion you' have got to

through the circle

in order to make it into a square

you w have to like you have to you have to cut the circle you have to

move the circle down the you have to cut it and then when you rotate the circle

you take a part of the circle and then you rotate at ninety degrees as a ninety degree angle

and then you get more th ninety degree angles you get a square but then also if you fold a circle into many

appoints a

according to you're speaking nonsense metrical holding speak you know also g to get it to you're speaking nonsense how do you know get a square from a circle

okay so what

ancient people and this is all people not just you know

white people like you're trying to racistly assert because egyptians were black people now

it

i a'm get it ands in one circle you haves circles

four corners right

and you draw circles on all of those and then the circit sounds like you're just you're just introducing dots and points in space now

you're it you're deviating in departing from the purity of circular motion

so from circular motion how do you get a fucking square

motion pesto motion not not drawing lines not drawing points

as you said

just from motion pure motion how do you get a fucking square

in order to get a square you have to

so sum it up thing shapes do come from fucking drawing lines and it is the continuity of fucking space it is the fucking continuity of space you fucking asshole

i was right initially and you said no no no shapes are just motion yeah that's where they come from that's where the first that's where thatm that's where they come no

no i admit that a

the circles i admit sid circles represent infinity i agree with that

circles represent infinite space and infinity i agree with that what

and infinity is the ground of of shapes without infinity how do you have finite do you can't have finite points in space

without be infinite so i agree with that but you just fucking said

that shapes are not fucking um

continuities of in space

yes they fucking are and they are defined by points they are defined by points in space

why don't you open up your m s paint right now and you draw me a picture of a straight line

wy does that have to be an infinite line

but has how can you tell if it's an infinite straight line

or

a segment of a very large circle

i agree it's probably a segment of a circle

but it's always a segment of a circle but just because it's a segment of a circle

from the perspective of infinity

doesn't mean that discrete shapes do not exist they do we don't even know if it's an infinite circle you don't even know if it's just a very big circle

a circle is ma by definition a circles infinite by definition dumb assid doesn't have

any what in aund by definition there's smaller circles and bigger circles doesn't matter they don't have a beginning or an end

that doesn't mean it's infinite

why not

because if i had if circles were really infinite then i would never be able to draw a circle

so how do you define the so so what separates a big circle from a small one

obviously the size of it

i think we should allow karim into the show because heh's never been on the show before

who is is that the guy in the showcquue

i think so

who is cokrem

um

he's like a famous you tuber who you give me ex what is the quantity of a small circle versus a big one

well for example if we have a circle that has

ah

an area that is twice as big as another circle

the smaller circle would be half irle

its circles like represent the infinity of motion

they i don't i don't believe that

you'r being correct when you say that they represent the infinity of motion

because it doesn't take an infinite amount of motion to produce that

so a big circle you're being crazy right now a big circle you're being irrational trying to gaslight me

dude n know i'm not a big circle

does a big circle take an infinite amount of time to create n

big circles are you all you all you had to say was

bigger circles represent more time and motion

smaller circles represent no they don't because you could do them very fast and it would take the same time as dous would have retard if a fucking circle slow if a circle had if a circle has the fucking diameter

of a fucking solar system

and you put a fucking pen there

and then you have a circle that has the fucking diameter

of a fucking car and you put a pen there

it depend will rotate around the fucking

lighter

much faster than it will the former

so it is an index of time

no because if you do the

oh my god god

literally if you had example for example if you had a very long stick

right

which connected

the one pen to the other pen

and they were both for rotating to make a circle it would make a small circle inside of a bigger circle and would take the same amount of time to make them

what then what do you mean there's a big circle in a small circle has this is b circle takes a longer me know it doesn't

because ok so if if a pen if a pen rotates one revolution around the sun

that's the same amount of time as if a pen

rotated one revolution around a fucking water bottle

don't you understand that things can rotate at different speeds

no the same speed

so you're saying that if something is going

the same splensopetling us you get a fucking bay blade

and you just spin it on your countertp

it will rotate extremely fast

let that try same w you that same motion

let me try and understand what you're trying to tell me

you're trying to tell me

that if there are two trains

that go the same speed

and one of them is going a shorter distance and one of them is going a longer distance the one going the shorter distance

weill arrive at this destination first

yes

that's what i'm saying

okay

i don't

what the fire

dude how am i wrong ji you gy i got a retarded

a fucking pen circling the sun

will clearly take longer to circle the sun

that has when it's going the same fucking speed

as a pen

that is only circling something that has the fucking diet radius of a fucking car

why am i wrong about that you fucking retard in the chat

i i'm going to ban that guy if you can't give me a reason why i'm wrong and you just said i was wrong

i'm bending you forever go ahead

but has you have to look at what i'm saying here

because

if you had

a very long stick that was connecting the two pens

wouldn't they both no matter what speed they were going at

they would have to get

at the end at the same time

of their circle

what is the end you mean with the begin if the mean on revolution always facing away from the studs and reas one revolution

yeah

so one revolution around the sun

and one

revolution would meet

that even though

the stick was always moving

that the smaller

circle pen

would be going

a slower way around the circle

than the outer circle pen which was going fast

what

right

but relative to each other

they would both be at the same like

percentage of having completed their circle they would both be at the same degree o me get this straight me get this straight

a circle moving around the sun five miles an hour

will move will take this same amount of time to have one revolution around the sun

as a circle

moving around the radius

of something that is only like thirty feet at five miles an hour that's what you're saying

no i'm saying

if you urd it ound that same speed is the axiom of what we're fucking talking about chat

i'm banning all these retards in my fucking if you have you know i you shut up shut up you sut you're notm going slow you shut up you shut up you shut up

i'm bad i'm going out a fucking pure right now

i'm so sick of these stupid fucking retards saying no it would be the same it would take the same amount of time at the same speed no it wouldn't

so who said it

no haw's the angle matters you're bann forever

obu that

okay but i was just talking about the

the angle of the degrees

you know

who else

if it was the same aint yeah you're getting baked forever

youre ban

that's permanent

by the way

locking dumb asses

i'm doing microsoft paint to explain how retarded you and my chat is

and if you're going to im saying then you should have fucking stopped interrupted me and you fuck should have listened to me but has i literally said to you because you say so this is what you're saying trace is on the retards of my chatter going not this is what the retards are saying right

this is what they're saying

so let's just do

no has you have to put the circle eyes onder eyes shut up

shut up

five hundred miles

five seat

yay five hundred miles in five feet

itver the circle inside another circle

no' not who saiy that

but that's all one sad with no one said that

yat i said that i said if you had a stick connecting the pen

and doging s oer up your ass shove that fucking stick

i don't know where you got a stick from dude where did you get the stick from

it came from nowhere not you know you sme from nowhere the stick came from nowhe so listen listens i this is what the chat this is what tho people in the chat and pesstom'm are saying ok no you're saying rah shut your mouth shut your mouth

so if you have a invi you shut up shut up

if you have

uh if you have like let's just call it a fucking pile a a quantum of shit

and let's make it brown to emphasize it's a piece of shit

ok

this piece of shit they're both going

ok they're both going

both

going

pieces of shit are going

five miles per hour

ank

i want to explain just this mind boggling retardation that i'm dealing with

a fire tr shot pter both pieces of shit are going five miles an hour right

so what you're saying so i so this is the distance one revolution to get back to its original position

one revolution

to get back to its original position

according to pestalmime

this would take the same amount of time

no well going five miles an hour that's what you're funking saying

that's what your focus saying

that's not what i say so when i'd say a larger square shut up shut up shut up when i say a bigger circle

represents more time

that's what i fucking meant ok

but it's not infinite time you said it was an infinite amount ok abstractly no originally i said abstractly the greeks had this whole metaphysics its infinite being whatever but then i said greeks when it comes to discreetly different circles when it comes to discreetly different circles

that you i said pesto you you're not good at explaining things

all you should have said was the difference between a big circle and a small circle is that a big circle takes more time it's an index of more time

for one revolution compared to small circle not true because if you do why is it not true

so you this is not a truth but this is not you're going to ask me questions and not allow me to answer the go answer answer

answer

if you do a big circle fast

it will take the same amount of time as doing a little circle slowly

what's your point

i'm i think it's pretty that's not how anything works in the real world though for examp is

no it's not you know it's not were its not ing not shut up

stut up if you take a rok can you do no i'll tell you why if i'm an ancient greek to prove that it works in real no no if i'm an if i'm a no shut up shut up rou being one of the rou s rou explaining shut up

you're not on your fucking newstand right now

if

you have a fucking rock in ancient greece and you'r fucking barefoot was fucking rock ok and you spin that fucking rock it's going to go really fast right

whereas if you put a comparable amount of energy on a shift in a shot not i'm muting you i'm muting the retard gy

when you are on a fucking shiit

and you're like moving around that fucking what the the fucking anchor or whatever

it's like it's bigger

so it takes more time

for example

something big

circles that incut typically in the real world

circles that encompass

more

diameter and more more of a raate more of a size

the bigger the circle

the more time typically it takes

for the circle to complete one revolution

that is like intuitively true in the real world

for one circle to complete a revolution

to arrive at its original point

takes longer than if it's smaller

now i don't care about the sticks you're talking about you're pulling out of your fucking ass

in the real world

that's how it works

the the sun the earth

takes longer to revolve around the sun

then

it takes me to walk around you

why is that so fucking hard to understand

now you can speak

the oud

the earth move he was still cut whre you talk otll time were you talking that aole time because you were muted i hope you know that

you can't

asking me questions and i was not supposed to answer them because you were muted i couldn't hear you neither could anyone else you know i thought you were bluffing no i actually mutedy because you were being so fucking annoying and you wan't listen

i'm going to blow your mind right now

do you know that the speed in which the earth travels around the sun every year

is faster than even the fastest person can walk and yet it takes longer

were because it's a begurse this is what i saying

that's what i was saying

but if you were moving as fast as the sun

i mean the earth goes around the yeah the difference is the size of the moing circle is what i was saying the difference is the size of the circlely thut it's because of the size of the circle

but has

if you were walking very slowly

that wouldn't be the case p

shut up who cares if i was walking slowly if the circle is bigger

the reveolt is not dependent on time

obviously

if you can do n time is dependent on the size of the circle

no it isn't because you can do it as slow as you want and then it'll take more time

but where does the motion come from in the fucking propris all motion is circular nail drawlu fverst iw many explain from the prese acratic is the sae s shut up shut up shut up

all motion is circular

all motion falling in space takes the form of a circle ok that's from the basic prescratic shit from the fucking greeks ok so when it comes to understanding

time

differences in time are just

the same thing is the size of circles

you're being really unfair to me right now no no i'm not

because every are no how do you measure speed pestomime how do you measure speed

how do you measure speed

how fast or how slow some so how do you measure how fast something goes how do you measure that

by how much

distance and travels in an amount of time

ok how do you measure distance

according to you because all distance is a circle right and it's within a circle

you measured in like feet or inches

what

or if you're in europe i guess you don't use feeedor inches but in america we do say isn't but isn't all space

an index of motion according to you

we measure it based on how fast it's gone

how do you know how fast is something going in comparison to something else

because

because it covers more distance right

in the same amount of time

o i want to get to the very foundation of what time is right now

well as if you discount things traveling more distance

and we don't even count the time then it doesn't matter how fast th we can begin with motion

we can begin with motion because there are discontinuities

there are things that are not that's like heraclytus you can fucking begin with motion can't you

yeah

ok so if you can begin with motion

you can clearly see so how do you measure the differences in motion different certiens

a big circle

is

more time than a small circle

the same amount of motion

if something squies that hard to understand

but if if the

if one circle is going a different speed than the other circle then you don't know if they would

but speed itself is just a fucking

speed itself

okay

is circular isn't it

what the hell that doesn't even make any sense

how fast something goes means

the rate at which it covers distance is it not

yeah

so what determines the rate at which things cover distance

how fast they are

and what determines that

the speed they're going

and what determines that

dude it's like simple

holy shit

you're being really unfair

i'm not being unfair i don't even want to have an argument i was literally i don't think you was asked and you are the one who is trying to say

you were the one who says the old house what about with a square a sorry what about of a circle

is bigger than another circle

and what is that what implications that have for shape and i was like ok

if all if all sha were sing you know i was just making an argument against you no ca no us do bestcs are inf you said no

i only said circles are infinit as a reference to philosophy

but anyy that's stupid no this is my problem with you hagel circles are infinite we're beings youircles are infinite are infinite no they're not

why are circles the symbol of infinity in every fuck and culture that exists

circle does not have a beginning or an end and and they don't have a beginning around therefore they're infinite

now the minute they be not infinite they only become finite in so far as time is quantifiable because a small circle

as you pointed out versus a big circle are different

they're different with respect

to time

they're not funcking with only back for time they're different in respect to size

and their difference in size is different with respect to time

i disagree

because both are the infinite movement of being

but one movement is going faster than the other

no

because what if the big circle is going very fast and the small circle is going very slow

fast first of all it's only going fast

if it's entangled in a whole fucking other bunch of fucking circles

like like something has a smaller mass

for example

okay

like a trabls travels have small mass

ok

are they fast

we no i'm

i'm saying oh my god i'm saying like i'm trying to reary over this wle i'm trying to reference subatomic particles that travel at very high speeds

that' a what about what about snails which are small but also slow i wasn't saying if you're smaller you go faster i was trying to reference subtomic particles of fucking idiots

but how do you

how do you say this

what determines the relatives

what determines

whether one thing is going to go faster than another thing

ca you explain that

in laroue terms

the speed of it

ok what determines the speed of things

how fast they're going

what determines how fast they're going stop using circular reasoning

you have nothing your whole your whole world you is destroyed

i've destroyed everything i've laid wait this are you going to say like what determines how fast something's going

cause lemm ask you that question cause are we saying

because listen i'm going to tell you something else that's really crazy

when i talk about something moving

i'm just like imagining like how its moving

in relationship to me personally

and in relationship to landmarks around

but do you understand that the earth is actually moving around the sun

and what's more the sun is actually moving

ok in relation to others can you ok

so what is speed

which is bad to me what is speech

a fast something good

that's taugtsological what is something what is something how fast something goes

what is that

we the rate at which as a species we don't know

the rate at which it is moving right

moving it relative to what

the rate at which it is moving

relative to what

relative what is the plane of motion relative to whatever plane of motion it's moving on there is no such thing as it

plaintiff

exist

yes there is there is clearly a plan of motion

thats that

i'm going to tell you something

unfortunately

i have here an article it's called what is god that mansin his image

unfortunately it is

a naive view of space

to say that it's a big flat plane

i didn't say it was that's why you why you do that shiit

were you just put words in my mouth i didn't say all of spacey words in my mouth this whole time you've been trying to tell me

that i said

that circles are infinite circles aren't infinite

and all this other stuff because you're trying to talk in terms of metaphorism

you know i'm so i agree that so i agree

that

shapes come from motion

and motion ultimately will always take the shape of his circle

day

that has profound implications though

because what that fucking means

is that

speed is just

a measurement

of

things in motion

ie

things in motion are taking

how much motion they go formal a circ it goes which is speed that's determined

again that's determined by the size of the circle

i don't i don't get where where you're conflating size and speed

i know you don't get it because it's why do something being big

make it faster

it doesn't

it means ok so then they're not

always connect it means the fucking the plut the circle

that its motion is ultimately

being defined by

he's bigger

relative how fast it's goe because if everything is relative

right if all speed has to be relational

right

then for something to be fast means it is fast relative to

like

relative it is moving at a is moving at a rate

relative to something right

has if there was a snail that was going faster than another snail then there was

another animal like a

like a dog that was going faster than the faster snail

what would you doan what are you saying

what are you saying

most of the times dogs are faster than even fast snails

and

what does that have to do with circles i'm saying

because a dog in motion on a dog in motion

okay

a dog in motion

first of all there's different aspects of the motion

there is the biological motion internal to the fucking dog

which allows it which allows it to fucking move its limbs and its legs in a certain way

so it's not just

so when the dog is moving ultimately in a circle like if the dog keeps moving

it's ultimately going to be moving in the shape of a circle right

then the dog

the the processes that allow the dog to propel the for words igzags the processes that propel the dog ok

so you're just defeating your own original point then because you von said

that all shapes are derivatives from circles

oka but zigzag's not a shape

so zigzags

are derivatives from circles yes or no

no

so all you have to do to defeat the mighty thesus that all shapes are derivatives from circles

is

doing a zigzag

thisse thingzags not a shape

yeah so when you do a zigzag you're no longer on a cert you're no longer producing

the motion in the form of a circle

yeah you can't make a circle out of you can't make as what you can make a zigzag out of circles

but it's going to be a bunch of different like

going to have to like

n't that not true because asnan exly do for a lot of she isn't not just relative because if i izags not a shape

well

if your zigzag is on a is it is part of a very large circle but has listen doesn't the zigzag just become infinitesimally small

part of the circle

hope

what do you mean

no you're being incorrect because a circle a circle there's there's no point in a circle

where it's separate from any other point of the circle that's a make of the fact that there every pint of a circle is infinitely the same as every other point of the so so three dimensions preclude the possibility of circles existing

circles are two dimensional

exactly but that's why the cat exists it becomes a cylinder so so you admit circles do not exist

circles do it know they dont not jest they do

nothing moves in a perfect

straight line

in reality nothing

yeat because it's impossible for anything to move in a straight line

because nothing moves in the exact

nothing moves the exact shape of a circle not circular but then nothing moves in the exact shape of a circle

the circles exist in something called

the complex manifold

what is the complex manifold

it exists outside of the distinct manifold

which we can see with our senses

the complex manifold

is the place where all the explanatory

processes of the universe so there's no le you know just re you're just talking ibberjack and don't exist in the complex man so shapes are not derivatives from falcking circles yes they are because cheaps exist now there's no circles though

but has

there are circles

i actually agree there are circles i just don't think you think that

i think there you gave me a fucking dog example of a fucking dog

so baseally trenches only through because if you want to be s being direct in the real world

then we're just not going to anoledge the existence of circles you're really te not going to acknowledge the fucking existence of circles that

then falk off if you're going to say

if you're going to say has the point you were trying to make about

the size of circles

being an index of different time

if you're going to fuk you right time fucking challenge that by pointing out snails and dogs or that i'm going to fucking just go ahead and deny circles exist in the fucking first place beause you clearly didn't understand my fucking point

listen hais

all right i'm going to tell you something

just because something does not exist as an item does not mean it does not exist as a process

surveys are result of circular action

there's no circular action process what circular action exists

where

what is moving in a circular action gve me the example of one thing moving in a circular action because youll me pestl mine that i keep wroking in one direction that all eventually fucking produce a circle we know that's not true

that is true no it's notcause it's impossible

the earth is a circle so if you walk on the earth n it's not a perfect circle

it's not a perfect so it's not a fucking circle then so shut up

but has there's zigzags and shit on it cause it's in three dimensional space

so shut up

jim

all right listen

you're really testing my patients right i know because i'm just going i'm bucking destroying explain so this is the end of pestomim i'm balcking destroying your bulls you know listen its to come on it's over now

if you had

for example

alright

an understanding of what i'm trying to tell you

that the circle exists in the circular action

which and you can't give me an example of circular action because there is none you can yourself earlier you contradict yoursef you contradicted yourself earlier in the fucking call where you told me that if i keep walking in one direction i'm going to produce a fucking circle no i'm not because it's not not walking in one direction you're producing circular action no there's no circular action there's non it's because it's noton circular because it's non circular because it's not circular

i'm going to tell you something hig

and you're not going to like it

go ahead

action that produces a circle is called circular action

but there is no circle to be produced so there you go

oh my god

there's no circle show me your fuck and circle there is not

i'm going to show you a circle right now

sow me

ok take a piece of paper and take a compass

that's not a real circle that's a fake circle

it's an illustrtj looks like arn it's not a real circle

the

it when you do the circular action with your pen it produces a circle no a circle only exists in your mind best to my there's n no no no if a snail is moving pesto mym there's no circle so far i me ask you something yeah the snails do have circles dude there's no ill service to me listen to me there's no snail circles pstom the no if you look at a snail there's no circle sorry

listen to me

if you had for example

taken the first snal

which was slow

and put it inside of a snail enclosure

yeah and the snail could crawl bll no circle snel in clll no circle

pyes

if the snail could crawl back and forth in the snail enclosure

and then you put the enclosure in the trunk of your car and you drove your car faster than the dog

which animal would be fastest

there wouldll no circle

there would still be some circle this is the problem with how you're talking about like oh speed is how long it takes nocause youo no no

no retard because you're trying to fucking bring this into the empirical world where circles don't even fucking exist

circles do exist and no you're trying to use vulgar examples of putting a turtle in my fucking ass or some shit

you can't fucking do that though because circle don't even exist in reality so you have to acknowledge the abstraction that my fucking argument is blling within you cad og thk senaro and throw it like the you're fucking ignoring what i'm trying to fuck and say which is like on the logical you're just being fucking vulgar well you want to be vulgar i can be vulgar to scle go even fuking exist and this is the difference

between me and you yeah because you go are

a

marxist

and i am an idealist

and that means that you always try and relate thing being a materialist i you you being in your world being in our asist being an empiricist

doesn't fucking mean

that sorry being a materialst doesn't make you a fucking empiricist and by the way pestom i'm not saying your material say opposite i'm saying that you are a person who believes in the magic

of words and so on and dialectics yeah that's material and that is materiism that's not that it's not a serious no it has nothing you're an empiricist and i'm a materialist

no i'm an idealist no you're an empiricist i'm like plato i'm an idealist no you're you're as a me're always trying to say plato's an idealist and i disagree

and i certainly agree or select

but i'm saying that because there is yourss as the complex manifold

in which the laws are an imperist

i'm not an impericist yes you are because you just youran hes inkouts you can't even think ot outside of your dumb fucking snail but us listen to me

an empiricist would say that there is

like you no way of i stry i'm trying to give a pretty intelligent i'm trying to give a pretty intelligent abstraction of time no i'm got shut up shut up i'm giving an intelligent abstraction of time

and you are out here

like

vulgarly situating that in the empirical world

destroying the abstraction

well then funck your circle because it doesn't exist on the empirical world aud and doesn't apply to the actual thing it's trying to abstract

yes it does yes it functing does pstll mine ok pastill mine

different circles

are different

because of the time

they represent different magnitudes of time

and i'm saying that they represent different magnitudes of how big they are

and the size is an index of time

you fucking idiot that's not true so what is size then tell me what it means for something to be big

it means that it's more area than it what does that mean what does that mean for something to have more area

see i'm a monotheist universalist

and you are a fucking pagan who like believes in a division of mental

categories in labor like to uset axiomatically think

that universal being is separate

into different categoriess i unite everything into one and that's the difference between us i try to grind things down to one truth

you try to just be like well how fast is something well the speed how what is speed or how fast something is going you have n p c dialogue loops i try to always see the deeper reality behind everything that unites everything you are

the thing is hig

so inside bes the mme what does that mean for something to be bigger than something else what does that mean means that is larger what does being larger mean

from the perspective of universal being nor

mass

from the perspective of universal being what is a larger quantity of mass

the universal being isn't concerned with these thoings

things about like

oh something's bigger that means it takes more time that's not

at all what the universal being is doing

so what does it mean for something to be bigger

that it's larger what is not don't give me a tautological definition that's metanumic

give me a cont give me an explanation

that makes sense of what it means for something to be larger why are some things larger than other things

at it smells more i guess

why are some things larger than other things can you explain that

um

i guess it's because it no don't be sarcastic if you be sarcastic i'm kicking you right now

well actually haz did you know that like

when you divide a string

it makes the different notes at the different intervals why why are there different sizes in the universe

of things

you're not going to like my answer go ahead tell me

it's because

some things

are more are more

big

then somedow they get the fung ot it we're done

get the fucking on

i'm done i'm done

i'm done

unfortun on

i'm fucking don

i am futing on

i'm foking on

i

there we go

there we fuck and go

ok

i'm done

it spent two hours we got nowhere

ok

we've got fucking nowhere

ok i'll give iron boy a chancell right

go ahead

speak

and i can't hear you uh

yes

oka this circle debate

uh i mean partily partially it was you were not even serious but

okay let's get back to it

i wanted to argue that a circle is not even

the real thing the real thing is a cone

and the sort of w

projection of the cone

it's a what's a call

a cone like you know on an ice cream cone imagined like yeah fes that exist or is that also an abstraction it is an abstract abstraction

so but it explains our universe you know the you know physical phenomena of our universe proves the existence

of

you know another sort of reality that we can't see so what is this why is it a come

so kepler discovered this

but

when he looked at the orbits of the planets he found that they were not perfect circles

but rather that they were ellipses

and one in ellipses is essentially it's a cone

and then you tilt it and then you cut it

and it's like a flattened circle so what it looks like is a flattened circle but what that flattened circle which is the orbits of all the planets

is in reality is actually a section of a cone

kind of projected onto

you know what we can physically see

wy is it a cone

yes

yeah wy is it a comld

it's what we can see it's what we can prove

no i'm saying why why are lipses a cone again can you explain that

o why are they cone i mean i can show you the mathematical proof just sort visually so i can picture it in my head

okay okay

so imagine you have an ice cream come

and you have an extremely sharp knife

yeah

you cut the cone diagonally across

uh with the knife

so that like howch which way across

ue anyway across

they going ok got yeah you're holding the ice cream cone it's upside down right you gt ice cream in it you cut the cone

through it with a knife that cod onle across and you get two halfs of the cone

okay

if you were to put that half of the cone

on a piece of paper and trace it you would actually get in the perfect elllipse if you had a perfect

a coke

but there's no perfect cone that's the problem

there's no the not not in physical reality but it does kind of but you know ca was not observing perfect ellipses either

yes he was observing the plams

right but those are not perfect ellipses

no they're not ust likelight her pert perturbation so what' so what's the point of a cone how is a cone any better than a circle

what

if you're just going to say

everything' is a code because ellipses

are part of a cone why couldn't you just then i think it's better to just say it's part of a circle

if you're just going to have an abstraction

because a colon is

twe

presupposing the perfection of a circle

i mean that the coe is kind of explains why there are no you know even

no it doesn't the cone doesn't explain why there's no perfect circles because there's no perfect cones either

i mean in a way there are perfect circles like your earlier question is prove a circular motion exist and you know

reality

i mean you know your very joints are circular in themselves you the fact that you move your arm as a result of circular motion but it's not tr it's not really circular

it is a combination of different circles

know it's witch circles

so if you were to you know you work out if you were to do like a bicec curl that is a that is a circle between your elbow

and of course you're going to your shoulders going to move a little bit but that's also a circle produced i know but the the circle is not

an actual circle

yeah there's a there's slight you know there's slight imperfections i mean you the idea of a circle is just

an abstraction of things

returning to place

but things never returned to place perfectly

from the perspective of actual being it's just i mean actually i would have i would agree with that so you know that previous debate you had with pesta where it's a circles infinite

i mean

m

in a sense like it doesn't exactly return to the same place youre right it's a spiral right and i'm actually you know rou illustrated this that no real work is actually a circle it is actually

considered a spiral

that there is a sort of

you know there's a linear there's a sort of not perfectly but

there is a sort of progression to it

right that i

you know things don't always go back to exactly the way they are

that you know

for example in our world there' is the time and time is not

linear but it does move forward and we can't really go back in time

yeah

so

good

so things move in a spiral

whatere does the spiral

does not return to itself it is just an infinite spiral then

yeah yeah it is sort of an infinite spiral and a in a way if you look at it from one way

yeah it is it does you know return to itself if you were were to look at the spiral fronm you know

a from a certain angle it is a perfect circle just going in and on and on forever

if you look at it from theo one it never returns to it never does that from knowingle does it do that

well if fire come

must always be out of joint with itself

if you look at the spiral like from the you know it's like a cylinder right if you look at the still not a iner

the spiral is not a perfect cylinder no the spiral

in question could not possibly be a perfect cylinder

why not

because what to bi because it time it could never actually

because the because and like i get there's three dimensions and shit

but like it would always deviate just a little bit

from returning to place

i do you mean in sort of like physical reality or in what sense is re know i mean in our mind we can construct a perfect spiral that always returns to the same thing just like

a circle exists it's in our mind we can but nothing actually obeys that motion that form of motion

nothing obeys the form of motion of an aatural spiral

yes but also nothing obeys anything that we understand it as i mean everything is slightly different than you know in the physical universe is always slightly different than you know we can never fully understand anything

in that

sounds better

so what's the mean that's all we have what's the point of the spiral why not just stay with a circle

is to illustrate the point that there is actually no such thing as something always returning back to itself

but there's also no such thing as something being a spiral

with um

with the spiral you're able to calculate things that you wren't without the spiral because the say is things with a circle with the circle you're able to calculate things

without aus yet butter

but for example there you know there's things that prove the spiral is a better better matches up i guess in a sense a better matches up will be abserd if it's just better of it roximates reality

and there's nothing like especially absolute

or significant about it at that level it's just like

at that point it's kind of like some kind of

you knows philosophy of science we can't know anything it's just approximating reality

i mean i guess i guess in a sense i mean how i view it is i don't i don't know if we'll ever know reality a hundred percent right i mean in a sense if we were to know the real truth behind every single thing in reality then

that would make us like

god in a sense and i don't think we could ever reach to that point i thught we

i think

f

that the circle thing would probably just be better to

work with

and to try to try to get one's mind around

why are circles

representing eternity

even though they don't exist anywhere

and i think that begins with heraklitus very clearly

but

that presupposes dialectics which is completely rejected

bl a roof

i guess in a sense i mean you could consider livens monads or you know the cls of cuses idea of

the

coincidence of opposites

um but on back up to that circle idea i mean

you know this debate originally came from this idea that you know there's a fundamental difference between civilizations that there is you know a chinese logic

there is a

european you know maybe separate in europe but there's an indian logic or so on and so on

but i think the example that the circle in every single culture represents the infinity

it kind of disproves it in the sense that there is a sort of

universal

logic

right there i don't think that's evidence of a universal logic because the logic of an infinity has a determined logic

infinity of what

even how infinity is understood beyond the abstraction is different

but in a sense we sort of understand infinity through these sorts of likeight

i mean he brings up the idea of geometry right i mean different cultures don't find

fundamentally different geometric laws

geometry is just an abstraction

that doesn't actually have any content

the logic is not just about forms and relate relations between forms

logic is about how form derives itself from content

and in that regard there is completely different logos between civilization

a

sorry i guess i guess i'm

you're kind of losing me there

im

could you explain it

a at bit more stupid i guess

how form arises from content is the same as saying how does abstraction

derive from determinate particular realities

out as a universal state

relate to the particular reality of civil society

how do

people relate to strangers how do people articulate themselves within the hole

how does the hole relate to its parts

that is just that how does the whole reproduce itself

through its parts

that is what logic is

that's what i feelos type of logic is a logos is

and that is the

very different across civilizations

i may if you't allow me to

for a moment become the

a materialist couldn't you say that you know those are the results of different material realities within each country

and the fact that see nothing

that the same person with for example like if you if you pluck a person from china right and you just

you know put them into india or into persia and had them raised there you know the sort of different

um

the sort of different environments and daily realities and so on would result in them having different methods to survive the would ess they would be then

in the bosom of a completely different locos

because different logos is like different individuals

it's not

it's not uh based on uh

it's not a reduction to different races or something like biologies

a logos is a form of reality itself

just like individualsrere different forms of reality

but i guess i guess the difference that we're thinking about here is like

um

that to me there is something you know even before that level of logos right even before that like this sort of you know this universal human reason like

but it's maybe there is but it's not reason it's definitely not

something called reason

maybe so i'm saying maybe the riight these sort of different geometry just like there are different individuals there are different forms of universal humanity

there are different ways in which the one universal being

realizes itself

but at the core of it it's still a human being

that is there is yes but

that

universality is derived

from uh

the bottom up not the top down

so for example

uh chinese and indians

and the russians

share a universal humanity not because you're beginning

with some concept or idea of universal humanity and they're just

in the image of that but because

they are

um

concluding with this same universal humanity

how do you show that they come from a different that you know instead of arriving at the same universeal humanity then how do you how do you show that

they're not coming from the same

universityd

i mean they they may

they do come from the same universal humanity but universal humanity itself

includes its own differences just like

the differences between any

species and

a class and and

genera and i

genus

so on and

individual

all these differences at the level of classification prove

that

difference and

one is

do not

necessarily i

come in

though not they co exist basically thank you so much line appreciate

like there are different individuals

we were part of the same civilization

there are different civilizations

each individual has a different expression of

universal humanity and

a universal civilization

i mean i would agree with that right that's that is you know why we must invest every and every single individual i mean that's part of the sort of

ser is no

universal state

in the sense of in

encompasses and precludes every single civilization on earth

humanity

the self consciousness of humanity takes the form

of its different states and its different civilizations

and those

or not

determined by one

state

of some kind that

categorizes all of them as the same so if there is a universal humanity it can only be understood through the differences

not

at their expense

yeah yeah

think i think i would agree with that you also said yourself earlier in that

you do believe that there will be a sort of almost unity between the east and the west where the west will becoe sort of east and the east as

you know in some ways i already become west

a

and the at the end of this do you know do you see this sort of universal state

that you know encompasses universal humanity

am

i don't know if it would be a state

but i do think

a universal product

of some kind or object

that's very

i think that that

we already kind of seeing that

emerge with the information age

i think that's very possible

okay

ok great

that

okay bye bye

what you have five seconds to say something intelligent five

for three

do

turnu

thank

right

believe the snake eating its tail

and you know that's one of the biggest freemason symbols ever

you know

y anything else

also you said cops are good even though cops are all possessed by freemason devils because you know they literally all do masonic rituals to get in

ah and i don't i don't remember saying that but okay you did you said that yesterday you said that yesterday

i said

i said that he set an example some individual cops

are good do notn mean cops are good

no no individual cops are good

okay anything else

another thing is that i told you to add your name up because your name adds up to eight you know it also adds up to eight

eight

yeah your name adds up to eight in numerology

that's the number of infinity that's so cool

no it also adds up to mason

ok anything else

ah

what else what else

naw the rest i can't really say on you tube i guess

aright

well thanks for your information bye by

ok

that's what he wanted to say

you just wanted to say i was a mason

okay

alright

yea okay

i guess i can't

disagree

s what's the point you know

hey guys i'll see you tomorrow

but i you know you guys are getting spoiled with content all right you guys are just getting spoiled with content

i

and

and i want to just

say that

there's one thing i agree with pestom about throughout that whole debate

that just really

you know

i really enjoyed

i really enjoyed

right

and what i really enjoyed

was

love is jt the history that they may proven when their bones i'll tell them by religions when bons their thons to kill the king upon this bone i'm rest the bs their thones

are not just part form scalogor to car he can rewrite the gul of my fury heart i alay are motins and parison to pa

ing