DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ancient World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30067--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 3, 2025, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
But what does our victory look like? It is not a world where
there is no pain and sadness. A world where there is no pain and
sadness would be fundamentally unjust, since it would imply evil
people receive the same outcome as good people.
The world we want is one where pain and sadness are experienced
by evil people only. The Gnostic ideal is heaven for good people
and hell for evil people.
#Post#: 30069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: HikariDude Date: May 3, 2025, 8:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ll take the lack of response as an agreement.
Moral of the story:
1) start where you are, use what you have, do what you can
2) know the beginning to know the end and you will know the
world and the corpse
Any disagreements?
#Post#: 30070--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 3, 2025, 9:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The danger of the wording "use what you have" is that it could
be misinterpreted to mean opposition to acquiring control of
resources currently controlled by someone else.
If there is an inhabitable territory currently divided between
two states A and B, with A superior to B by our standards, I
would recommend A conquer the territory currently controlled by
B rather than transform currently uninhabitable surrounding
territory into inhabitable territory, as the former at least
does not increase the total quantity of inhabitable territory
whereas the latter does. But "use what you have" could be
misinterpreted to mean "don't conquer B's territory".
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-folkish-imperialism/
#Post#: 30074--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: HikariDude Date: May 4, 2025, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What I meant was in opposition to creation and exploration. For
example, farmers settled in river valleys, used the seeds and
environment it had (as opposed to hunters, herders, etc. who
search for resources regardless of settled location).
“If there is an inhabitable territory currently divided between
two states A and B, with A superior to B by our standards, I
would recommend A conquer the territory currently controlled by
B rather than transform currently uninhabitable surrounding
territory into inhabitable territory, as the former at least
does not increase the total quantity of inhabitable territory
whereas the latter does. But "use what you have" could be
misinterpreted to mean "don't conquer B's territory".”
Couldn’t it also mean “Don’t create more inhabitable territory”?
Also, the territory used by B already exists whereas, besides A
and B, there was no other inhabitable territory had.
I agree that it would not be that ideal to settle for something
simply because one can afford to do so. But it’s another problem
to add new things to existence (whether from creation or
discovery).
What do you think would be a better proverb?
#Post#: 30080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 4, 2025, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Couldn’t it also mean “Don’t create more inhabitable
territory”?"
Yes, it could. Therefore it is ambiguous wording, which we
should try to avoid.
"What do you think would be a better proverb?"
Antagonism, not protagonism?
#Post#: 30090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: HikariDude Date: May 5, 2025, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
“Antagonism, not protagonism?”
What about ‘cultivation, not creation’?
#Post#: 30091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 5, 2025, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"What about ‘cultivation, not creation’?"
I see what you are trying to do, but I could ask the same
question of cultivation as of creation: how much cultivation
before we consider it to be enough?
#Post#: 30094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: HikariDude Date: May 5, 2025, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“I see what you are trying to do,”
I was just trying to understand the basic Gnostic viewpoint and
what True Leftism actually is.
I know the order is Dualism, Quality, Duty, and Struggle. I know
subjectivity is important since the individuality of truly
honest people allows us to know their truly designated folk even
if it is not this True Left folk. I know one should punch up
against initiated violence (even if the retaliator looks like
the initiator). I know that power should not be given to oneself
but to qualified individuals. I know that pacifism and
egalitarianism is not true universalism and will only include
oppression. I know that true freedom is willingness to face
consequences.
But if there is one common thing that defines True Leftism, what
is it?
#Post#: 30096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 5, 2025, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Dualism"
To be precise, it is possible for anti-Gnostics to be dualists
also. If they like the material world and believe that we
(Gnostics) who dislike it were not created by the creator of the
material world (whom they worship) but by some oppositional god
(whom they are hostile towards), they are still dualists, but
obviously they are not Gnostics. Therefore Gnostics are a subset
of dualists, specifically we are anti-materialistic dualists.
"Quality"
This term is meaningless without a statement of the standards by
which we measure quality. For example, some people consider high
sexual dimorphism to be high quality. They still believe in
quality. They are obviously not us, however. (We consider low
sexual dimorphism to be high quality.)
"Duty, and Struggle"
It should be clarified that it is the discharging of our duty
and the ending of our struggle that we aspire to. We do not
enjoy any of this and certainly do not want to prolong it.
"if there is one common thing that defines True Leftism, what is
it?"
Agreement that the most urgent priority is killing Western
civilization. True Leftism is a specific reaction to Western
civilization. Once Western civilization dies, True Leftism can
be retired. After that, we get to return to the old Gnosticism
vs traditionalism conflict (as had been ongoing in non-Western
civilizations since ancient times until interrupted by Western
colonialism).
#Post#: 30104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gnosticism
By: HikariDude Date: May 6, 2025, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“Therefore Gnostics are a subset of dualists, specifically we
are anti-materialistic dualists”
You know when I know the meaning of that saying from Gospel of
Thomas (56 & 80), physical things are clearly dead. Material
needs emotion, energy, personality, labour, free will, action,
etc to function properly. Mind helps matter, but matter exploits
mind. This is why birth will enslave spirit while death will do
the opposite.
(It can be noted that initiated violence is anti-Gnostic due to
the initiator not recognizing if the victim had initiative while
retaliation is Gnostic due to the retaliator recognizing the
oppressor did indeed have initiative.)
I believe individuals have both good and evil traits. But if
they are not willing to overcome evil traits, they voluntarily
identify as evil.
“We consider low sexual dimorphism to be high quality.”
What’s the difference between equality and universalism?
“Agreement that the most urgent priority is killing Western
civilization.”
Although I asked a similar question before about the founders of
Western civilization, what did Aristotle and Moses stand for?
What can a Westernized individual overcome to prevent anymore
Westernization? Voluntarily not reproducing is one, but there is
obviously more than that. Many Westerners did not reproduce (and
volunteered not to do so) but they are apparently still ignoble.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page