MUNDUS MILLENNIALIS & Orgy of the Will

For those who actually read these, anyone else notice how they are philosophical polar opposites? Rei (MUNDUS) resumes the Gnostic / Platonist / Apollonian side, favoring integration / perfection, oneness, and knowing, referring to those on his side as the "noble ones" and his opponents (who favor immersion over knowing, which he defines as suppressing self-awareness and consciousness, which stifles the soul) as ignoble. Meanwhile, Icy (Orgy) resumes the Pre-Socratic / Nietzschean / Dionysian side, favoring hierarchy / power, individuality, and immersion (which, following from Nietzsche, is seen as an intoxicating Yes-saying to life, life here understood as the cycle of creation and destruction).

Ignoring the tone / attitude of the writers behind these works, they are really simply continuing two long standing traditions which have always been at odds: the Apollonian which seeks to unite with oneness and move beyond the concepts of life and death and the passage of space-time, and the Dionysian which seeks itself, power for itself, choosing to celebrate the cycle of life and death and sustain it, choosing untruth over truth out of a desire for the intoxicating emotions that it comes with.

2 sides of the same coin.

Both are based on the idea of Darwinian theory of evolution, the idea that God doesn't exist.

So you've already assumed a theory which has been debunked by Kent Hovind in the '90s.

I'll stick to the 10 Commandments, thank you.

and icycalm rules his own forum with an iron fist and rei is a lowly tripfag on a public forum

it's like poetry

>Both are based on the idea of Darwinian theory of evolution, the idea that God doesn't exist.
These philosophical traditions have been going for much longer than Christianity and the theory of evolution have been around. In fact, you can see a very strong connection between Christianity and principles from the Apollonian side of this (i.e. Plato).

Or maybe you were unable to detect novelty and had to filter it into intellectual categories of which you were already familiar?
Awful post in every way, please do not reply to me as it will be as unfunny and uninformed as this post.

Some dude proved the existence of god in the 90s?

Jesus (The Word) has existed before the universe was created.

So your point is moot.

Icycalm.... is dead.....

>ecks dee

Now shut up, adults are speaking.

do you ever get tired of this shitposting

I do see novelty in their works. They both seem influenced by 20th century science fiction and internet / entertainment subcultures of the late 20th / 21st century which gives them a unique edge; their works are definitely modern in style, context, and subject matter. Icy is way harsher than Nietzsche, he's basically a superdeveloped version of Nietzsche's final form. Rei reads like an advanced computer AI that understands reality merely through its data. Reading their shit is like reading the faction dialog in SMAC or something.

Jesus (The Word) is not unique from the Gnostics' Light.

I think Mundus is a bunch of empty words wrapped in nice language. You can take just about anything from Orgy of Will and it will instantly provoke response. If Alex writes about a particular concept it really makes you start rethinking it, you feel compelled to accept or refute them. Rei's stuff doesn't really seem to provoke any sort of response from people.

Orgy is also extremely easy to read, you can pick it up with zero background in philosophy, it's anti-obscurism. It's also explicitly stated what previous philosophical ideas he is building on. Mundus, is like something out of the Gospel of Thomas, it's intentionally written to be hard to understand. He draws heavily from Jung's concept of "self" but this is not something you would know unless you have previously read Jung. Everything is a mystery.

I would call myself a follower of icycalm. My question is this, are there any actual followers of Rei? If Orgy and Mundus are opposites than having a discussion with someone that is serious about to him would be neat.

There was a post months ago on the forums saying he was on Hiatus until his books are done.

What does icycalm bring to the table that Nietzsche didn't?

Videogames

yeah but philosophically

Gnosticism is Satanic.

Icy I think is Nietzsche's successor, this means that a certain amount of Nietzsche will always be present in his works. I think you can see this with his critism of contemporary events and philosophers (yes including the vidya), these are criticism's done in the spirit of Nietzsche and done better than other of Nietzsche's followers. Aphorism 497 for instance sums up the history of all "minorities" their failures. 630 provides the solution to their sickness.

Icy's uniqueness is his "immersion", his so called "philosophy of the future" affirms everything. Even the basic enemy of Nietzchean philosophy, ressentment is affirmed in aphorism 547 and several other places. Opposition, such as resentment is necessary for there to be a struggle, you need enemies. "Bad" things are affirmed by immersing yourself in the struggle. You can also tie this in with his art theory: video games and action movies are the best form of art because they glorify struggle.

>273. The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting "utopian" conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called "dystopias" in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we're headed...

Jesus is a Satanist then.

Alex plz

I just started reading Mundus over the weekend, so I'm no follower. I lean towards the tragic in Nietzsche / Icy as well, always have and always will. But I think if Mundus continues to grow and become as big a work as Orgy currently is, it will be a pretty decent reference for Orgy's exact opposite in philosophy.

Also, by its very nature Mundus can never be considered "great" or "provocative" as a philosophical work. It's focused on the absolute, oneness, truth; not attachment, not separation, not hierarchy, not immersion, etc. It's almost like a void. A perfect indication of it is this passage:

>HOW WONDERFUL TO KILL ALL OF ONE'S FAMILY MEMBERS, AND RELATIVES; OBLITERATING ONE'S ENTIRE GENEALOGICAL EXTENSION; BLOTTING OUT ONE'S ENTIRE ANCESTRY FROM THE RECORD OF THE WORLD; KILLING ALL PERSONS WHO ONCE HAD KNOWN ONE, ALL PERSONS WHO ONCE KNEW WHO ONE WAS, ALL PERSONS WHO MAY REMEMBER ONE; DESTROYING ALL THE CITIES IN WHICH ONE HAS LIVED, ALONG WITH ALL OF THEIR INHABITANTS; NOTHING TO TRACE ONE, NOONE TO RECOGNIZE ONE. NOONE WILL KNOW ONE, NOONE WOULD KNOW WHO ONE IS, NOONE WILL KNOW WHO ONE HAD BEEN; ONE REMAINING AS ONE, ALONE, IN THE WORLD. AS ONE CLEARS, ONE BECOMES ZERO, BUT ONE AS ZERO ULTIMATELY REMAINS AS ONE.

Fair enough. I personally think Mundus is bunk, I could see it working as a sort of metatative work, some sort of mystical understanding. The quote you gave is a very dangeour sounding rejection of the Will, a question on it's interpretation: does Rei his One as a primarial psychological force the way Doctor Jung did or a metaphysical force in the style of the Gnostics and Platonists?


Rei is at the very minimum entertaining, so if he picked up a few vocal devotees it would be fun to see the results.

Trust me, things get extremely strange when you suppress knowledge to feel more fully immersed in something. The will can project shit like Illuminati construction workers taking pictures of you with weird tripod cameras outside the freemason building a block away from your house. Beliefs genuinely have infinite room for manipulation.

That sounds more like psychosis.

Speaking of psychosis: I think Mundus is just the stream of consciousness of a schizophrenic. He seems pretty intelligent but unfortunately it's filtered through the lens of unmedicated mental illness.

Actually stream of consciousness is the wrong phrase. He clearly has a system of sorts in mind, it's just like I said, psychotic.

He's more coherent than time cube at least.

He closes the circle that started with Heraclitus and continued with Nietzsche with his concept of immersion.

As much as modern medicine has a handle on the average human mind, it has nowhere near a decent understanding of the truly limitless potential of the entire system. To dismiss my words under a label of "psychotic" because they sound "unrealistic" is incredibly foolish. You don't have a handle on what "realism" truly means.

>time cube
That shit will never die.

Anyway, nah, I don't think he's schizo. A bit autistic maybe. He reads like all Gnostic and alchemical texts do, but with a 21st century computerized style. The concept of oneness / eternal constant / truth is very old.

If you read Mundus as if it is being said by some mad computer AI that became self-aware, it's kind of funny and almost makes more sense then.

>Darwin intended atheism

Why the fuck do both of these begin with the last aphorisms? Seems really backward and upside down...kinda like the garbage that these schizos wrote.

You read up the page to move forward in the work. It suggests ascension.

also you don't have to scroll to the bottom for every new aphorism this way

Orgy is very enjoyable to read, it really is like Nietzsche talking about videogames and other mundane modern shit.

The other seems a lot more up its own ass desu

REI \ Alex

Hitler \ Western world

Tesla \ Edison

Ted Nelson \ Tim Berners Lee

Aten \ Amon

Black \ White

Aryan \ Cro-Magnon

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Hegel / Nietzsche

Guts \ Griffith

>referring to those on his side as the "noble ones" and his opponents... as ignoble

Most likely the noble ones are "on his side" because they are noble, and the ignoble ones are his "opponents" because of their ignobility, not the other way around. I don't think he's so petty as to classify people on whether they agree with him or not.

haha

Sparta / Athens
DC / MARVEL
Dr. Manhattan /The Comedian
Vegan / Non-vegan

Bump

>MUNDUS MILLENNIALIS

What's with the heavy use of alliteration? Even the title is an alliteration.

Cheap tricks to disguise a lack of content.

Your post doesn't even make sense...

alliteration is appealing in regards to human psychology, it would give a more favourable impression regardless of content.

So, according to you the only reason someone would use alliteration is to disguise a lack of content?

...

Of course not, but in Rei's case yes.

If you think there's no content to MM, you don't understand a thing of what is written there.

Well mostly I'm triggered by the retarded use of the terms cromagnid, neanderthal, ayran etc. Of course there's insight to some degree in what he's written, he just needs to be explicit about metaphor, especially on a history board, on /x/ do whatever you want.

And alliteration is a trick. whether it's good or not is another question.

I am the person behind this post. Now I'm very curious. What content of value do you think is in his work? I've never really seen anyone make comments in praise of MM. So maybe you can help us all see what's the deal. I have some background in the Gnostic, Hermetic, and Jungian traditions MM uses so I'm used to reading cryptic and obtuse text. I'll be blunt, I don't see anything beyond obscurantism and schizophrenia.

Can you take a passage that you find particularly insightful and explain why you think it has value or offer something that Gnostic, Platonic, or Jungian sources didn't already say better and earlier?

I think that you're blinded by your preconceptions. You're just projecting what you know onto it and that's all you see therefore conclude there's nothing.

very surface level grasp of things on your part, maybe?

>Can you take a passage that you find particularly insightful and explain why you think it has value or offer something that Gnostic, Platonic, or Jungian sources didn't already say better and earlier?

I don't think you know what the purpose or function of philosophy is.

I'm asking you to give literally any sort of example of how it has some value that is not done better in other words. I freely admit to thinking he is without merit but I'm willing to change my mind if given reason. I was asked by another user in the post I linked to back up my claim that Orgy of Will has coherent themes, and worthwhile ideas that go beyond the philosophical traditions it borrows from. I am asking you to perform the same task with MM to help provide a discussion, as OP said Alex and Rei are follow opposite philosophical traditions so having discussion between an Icyian such as myself and a Reivian should be fun, there is no need to act defensive. I'm giving the floor to you and you can speak about MM in whatever terms you like.

Fuck off, alex

Icycalm's art essay was extremely good and has hugely influenced my thinking

>I don't have anything to say so I just deflect everything: the post

Not that guy, but, Orgy of the Will also has many passages which were pulled from others or already said by others in the past and were simply reworded. Especially in the beginning half of the work. MUNDUS is still only 100 passages in, it's just taking flight so to speak.

Also, this isn't a bad thing in either case; philosophers of the past have always done this. A great way to start on something new, is to first bring together and integrate everything that it will be founded on. And the arrangement of these things in Orgy or MUNDUS is itself something new, which will go on to create something very different in the long run (like what has happened with Orgy, and is only starting to happen with MUNDUS).

Some of the passages from MUNDUS I feel give identity to the work (they all do, but these do the "most") are 20, 23, 31, 38, 42, 46, 47, 52, 55, 56, 57, 60, 93, and 94.

I would say overall that the work is very ugly. Rei is like heaven's Hitler. Only, his "heaven" is the subhuman's heaven, as far as Orgy would be concerned. He is weaving this neo-Nazi pyramid scheme out of the concept of Gnostic light / nothingness. He talks down at the concept of immersion and praises truth instead, which is the absolute zero — annihilation of everything to anyone who is Nietzschean at heart, but a force of love (= optimality towards perfection) and ultimate connectedness to those that agree with him.

Icy's method of having his own individual, hierarchical forum and Rei's method of posting on an anonymous imageboard where everything posted is trivial reflect these two sides well.

And here we are again. Nietzsche vs. Christ, 21st century edition. Both would view each other as subversive and corrupting. They aren't really opposites, though; Nietzsche understood that with the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

We know it's you, Alex

Compare MM 55 to OotW 24

I agree with your point that Alex and Rei are ant-thesises of each other. In a few of the citations you give he even calls himself the champion of "dispersion". The inverse opposite of any given philosophy is bound to show up eventually, it's a mechanic in the system: Bauldrillard called it "reversibility", Doctor Jung called it the "harmony of opposites"

You can see Alex rejecting metaphysical mystism that Rei preports here

>Fuck the Indian gurus and the Zen morons. Indian gurus and Zen morons do not make space shuttles and genetic engineering programs, and that's why they are extinct. Don't become one of them — if you can. If you can't, on the other hand, nothing you do or say will matter in the long run, and that's the whole point I am trying to make here.

I personally think Oneness is a coping mechanism for people that find life empty and neeed to differ meaning to something completely outside and alien.

I do see that Rei continues the tradition from what you pointed out. I guess some people will make us of it. His development will be at the very least interesting.

Alex.... is dead....

...

>You can take just about anything from Orgy of Will and it will instantly provoke response.
>Rei's stuff doesn't really seem to provoke any sort of response from people.

a) Philosophy isn't about provoking popular response. That's what sophism is about.

b) >"No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."

-- Jesus per Gospel of Thomas.

;)

>I personally think Oneness is a coping mechanism for people that find life empty and neeed to differ meaning to something completely outside and alien.

All flights into the intangible start with a feeling of impotency. Will to power drives everything.

Of course, the interesting part about Mundus / the Apollonian side in general is that it acknowledges this too. Immersion is a flight into the intangible as far as it is concerned, because it is a dissolution of consciousness, and because the cycle of death is considered only existing on this physical plane. The only tangible, real thing then, which is recognized as persisting endlessly despite anyone's attempts to remain immersed, is the absolute truth, where none of "this" (everything in life, the whole physical and chemical phenomenon of life) survives.

But on the Dionysian side, as far as Nietzsche and Icycalm are concerned, this "absolute truth" is a non-concept. THAT is the intangible thing for them. Will to power is the foundation, and this "absolute truth" stems from deep impotency, an imagination from a sick mind —we have no means, organically, and by nature of being deterministically connected to the past (perspectivism), to even perceive of such a void as this "absolute truth" that is beyond any perspective and is "inherently" "absolute," so to even speak of it suggests you are very confused by your own language (i.e. you have forgotten where this language comes from, which is the minds of human beings), or you are mentally ill and desperate to project your psychosis onto the world.

Both sides have different ideas as to what constitutes noble and good action, because their value systems are opposite of each other. Both are beyond good and evil, and neither are right or wrong, except being the strongest definition of wrong to one another.

But I agree. I am too much of a power romantic to want what the Apollonian wants.

But one other thing: both sides need each other and bleed into each other often. It's in the Dionysian's nature to be so self-recursive and challenging that it eventually leads to CREATING an absolute, which is itself. The primarily Dionysian love for the art of Tragedy also requires sharing and acknowledging a piece of that value system from the Apollonian, too; you can't have the art of tragedy and be able to perceive its beauty without both sides in coexistence within the tragedy, and within yourself.

ITT: Antony zyrmpas samefagging, and conversing with himself, while skewing and perverting the meaning of MUNDUS MILLENNIALIS.

Just fuck off, you bald Barbarian.

>You can take just about anything from Orgy of Will and it will instantly provoke response
Because of it's controversial and provocative nature.

>Rei's stuff doesn't really seem to provoke any sort of response from people
Because in the long run most of his stuff is stuff that people can associate with without losing anything in the process. Also, he reads like an extra-ironic tumblr post(er).

My writing style is nothing like his, you tart.

Also, you're free to actually discuss something or bring up counterpoints rather than complain — it's not like anyone here is being particularly aggressive and authoritative.