Hannibal

Foucault on the "Disciplinary Society"

Quote :

Instead of Scientology I advertise, (Serge Kahili King) 7 Huna Principles, here in short

Quote :

1. The World Is What You Think It Is.
2. There are no limits.
3. Energy Flows Where Attention Goes.
4. Now Is The Moment Of Power.
5. To Love Is To Be Happy With (someone or something).
6. All Power Comes From Within.
7. Effectiveness Is The Measure Of Truth.

Basically Hedonism.

Narcissistic solipsism.

I like it.

You're welcome. I'd say it's Scientology in a nutshell.

Why is it Hedonism? What's hedonistic about it?

And isn't "narcissistic solipsism" a tautology?

What's narcissist about it?

Where does it indicate solipsism?

Let's begin with the the first.

That's why you like it.

Tell me....do you live in your world or THE world?

I have an interpretation of the world which may be more or less precious; ti may have more or less connections to the sensual world which is before me, accosting my senses continuously.

You, on the other hand, presumably live in a world you think into existence.

I loved how you so easily tilted towards the more feminine eastern world.
The young Hannibal Lecter avatar does not suit you.

World as Will and Representation. The Original Title is: Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.

Vorstellung is more accurately translated as: imagination.

Representation is actually a misleading translation.

Excellent...now explain how, in reference to what is stated in the book about the world, this changes something.

I copy and paste this from the Internet. The Block Lettering is original Serge Kahili King ("Urban Shaman"), the explanations may not be. The Corollaries are original Serge King. They add understanding.

Quote :

THE Huna 7 PRINCIPLES

1 IKE (eeKay)-- THE WORLD IS WHAT YOU THINK IT IS: (clear)
AWARENESS
If you change your thinking, you can change your world .
A.COROLLARY -- EVERYTHING IS A DREAM

Dreams are as real as reality. If this life is a dream, and if we can wake up fully within it, then we can change the dream by changing our dreaming.

B.COROLLARY -- ALL SYSTEMS ARE ARBITRARY

The absolute truth is whatever you decide it is. Take what you like and leave the rest.

2 KALA -- THERE ARE NO LIMITS: (red or pink)
FREEDOM
You can create anything you can conceive .
A.COROLLARY -- EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.

B.COROLLARY -- ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.<

C.COROLLARY -- SEPARATION IS A USEFUL ILLUSION.

3 MAKIA (maKEYah) ENERGY FLOWS WHERE ATTENTION GOES: (orange)
FOCUS
Directed attention is where your personal energy goes.
A.COROLLARY -- ATTENTION GOES WHERE ENERGY FLOWS

Attention is attracted to any strong source of energy that stimulates any of our senses.

B.COROLLARY -- EVERYTHING IS ENERGY

4 MANAWA (MaNaVa)-- NOW IS THE MOMENT OF POWER :(yellow)
PERSISTENCE
We always have only now! All memories are now experiences. As you change your mind, you change your experience. Your present it NOT the result of your past.

A.COROLLARY -- EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE>

B.COROLLARY -- POWER INCREASES WITH SENSORY ATTENTIION

5 ALOHA -- TO LOVE IS TO BE HAPPY WITH :(green)
LOVE
A.COROLLARY -- LOVE INCREASES AS JUDGMENT DECREASESS
Fear, doubt, anger give rise to negative criticism and judgment, which causes separation and diminishes love. Criticism kills relationships; praise builds and rebuilds them.

B.COROLLARY -- EVERYTHING IS ALIVE, RESPONSIVE, AWAARE

Whenever criticized, praise yourself aloud and the criticism will have no Affect on you as long as you don't fear it.

6 MANA -- ALL POWER COMES FROM WITHIN: (blue)
CONFIDENCE
No one can have power over you unless you let them. Freedom is in one's own head. No one else makes you unhappy.

A.COROLLARY -- EVERYTHING HAS POWER

Everyone has the same power

B.COROLLARY -- POWER COMES FROM AUTHORITY

Speaking with authority means speaking with confidence that your words will produce results.

7 PONO -- EFFECTIVENESS IS THE MEASURE OF TRUTH: (purple)
FLEXIBILITY
There are no absolute truths. Only an effective truth at an individual level of consciousness is important.
The means produces the ends.

What's really important is what works.

A.COROLLARY -- THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY TO DO ANYTHING

From Wikipedia:

Quote :

English translations
Schopenhauer in 1815, second of the critical five years of the initial composition of Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.

In the English language, this work is known under three different titles. Although English publications about Schopenhauer played a role in the recognition of his fame as a philosopher in later life (1851 until his death in 1860)[3] and a three volume translation by R. B. Haldane and J. Kemp, titled The World as Will and Idea, appeared already in 1883-1886,[4] the first English translation of the expanded edition of this work under this title The World as Will and Representation appeared by E.F.J.Payne (who also translated several other works of Schopenhauer) as late as in 1958[5] (paperback editions in 1966 and 1969).[6] A later English translation by Richard E. Aquila in collaboration with David Carus is titled The World as Will and Presentation (2008).[7]

Translator Aquila believes that the reader will not grasp the details of the philosophy of Schopenhauer properly without this new title: "The World as Will and Presentation." According to him, “Idea,” “Representation,” and “Presentation” are all acceptable renderings of the word “Vorstellung”, but it is the notion of a performance or a theatrical presentation that is key in his interpretation. The world that we perceive is a “presentation” of objects in the theatre of our own mind; the observers, the “subject,” each craft the show with their own stage managers, stagehands, sets, lighting, code of dress, pay scale, etc. The other aspect of the world, the Will, or “thing in itself,” which is not perceivable as a presentation, exists outside time, space, and causality. Aquila claims to make these distinctions as linguistically precise as possible.[8]

I suggest english speakers to read the Aquila/Carus (2008) translation. Or the Haldane/Kemp, if that is still available somewhere. Just not the Payne one.

I don't like it one bit. And the goal is basically hedonistic - avoidance of pain to living a more co-operative, positive, harmonious life, "to do no harm to anyone". So New Age.

Huna Principle is just Xt. in another garb; Serge himself has written as much:


Below is a list of the seven principles of Huna, each followed by sayings of Jesus that teach the same thing. Translations are from the King James version of the Bible except for a few from the Amplified Version (AV). This study is not complete by any means.

The World Is What You Think It Is
"Repent - that is, change your mind for the better, heartily amend your ways with an abhorrence of your past sins, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17AV)
"As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." (Matt. 8:13)
"Thy faith hath made thee whole. (Matt. 9:22)
"According to your faith, be it unto you." (Matt. 9:29)
"And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matt. 21:22)
"Thy faith hath made thee whole." (Mark 5:34)
"Whosoever ... shall not doubt in his heart but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mark 11:23)
"What things soever you ask in prayer, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them" (Mark 11:24)
"Thy faith hath saved thee." (Luke 7:50)
"Your faith has made you well." (Luke 8:48)

There Are No Limits
"Your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matt. 6:
"If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly father will also forgive you." (Matt. 6:14)
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." (Matt. 7:7)
"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, 'Remove hence to yonder place,' and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matt. 17:20)
"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18:18)
"All things are possible to him that believeth." (Mark 9:23)
"With God all things are possible." (Mark 12:27)
Energy Flows Where Attention Goes
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matt. 6:21)
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matt. 7:12)
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (Matt. 13:12)
"Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves." (Matt. 7:1AV)
"Unto you that hear shall more be given." (Mark 4:24)
"For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." (Mark 4:25)
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:34)

Now Is The Moment Of Power
"So do not worry or be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have worries and anxieties of its own. Sufficient for each day is its own trouble." (Matt. 6:34AV)
"The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 10:7)
"'O woman, great is your faith. Be it done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was cured from that moment. "(Matt. 15:28)
"So the father knew that (his son was healed) at the same hour in the which Jesus said to him "Thy son liveth.'" (John 4:53)

To Love Is To Be Happy With
"Happy (blessed) are the humble (poor in spirit), for the kingdom of heaven is theirs; happy are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted; happy are they who are patient (the meek), for they shall inherit the earth; happy are the upright, for they shall be satisfied; happy are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; happy are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God; happy are those who are persecuted for being and doing right, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; happy are you when people revile you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things against you falsely on my account. Be glad and supremely joyful for your reward in heaven is strong and intense." (Matt. 5:3-12AV)
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." (Matt. 5:44)
"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another." (John 13:34)

All Power Comes From Within
"Not that which goes into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matt. 15:11)
"There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him, but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man...For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts." (Mark 7:15, 21)
"The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

Effectiveness Is The Measure Of Truth
"Bring forth fruit that is consistent with repentance ­ let your lives prove your change of heart." (Matt. 3:8 - John the Baptist AV)
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, its strength, its quality, how shall its saltness be restored? It is not good for anything any longer." (Matt. 5:13 AV)
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." (Matt. 5:14-15)
"Beware of false prophets ... Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:15,16)
"A good man out of the treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." (Matt. 12:35)
"And he arose and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea 'Peace, be still.' And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them 'Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?'"
Gospel of Huna


From Wiki,

"Dianetics divides the mind into three parts: the conscious "analytical mind," the subconscious "reactive mind", and the somatic mind.[1] The goal of Dianetics is to remove the "reactive mind", which Scientologists believe prevents people from becoming more ethical, more aware, happier and saner. The Dianetics procedure to achieve this is called "auditing".[2] Auditing is a process whereby a series of questions are asked by the Scientology auditor, in an attempt to rid the auditee of the painful experiences of the past which scientologists believe to be the cause of the "reactive mind.""

Scientology/Dianetics crap basically want to cut off the "reptilian brain"; and keep only the good stuff. It and this Huna method of Recall Healing teaches one can think away a past pain by changing one's imagination, embellishing the interpretations, picking the good, leaving the distasteful.
Its so nihilistic. Huna is outspokenly associated with the
Unity Church and its Daily Word

Its the same that the Ashtavakra text in Hinduism teaches:

"If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound. Here this saying `Thinking makes it so' is true . [1.11]


This is why I said, Laconian seems to confuse self-healing psychiatrics for philosophical activity.
You can't heal or mature, without confronting your past head on, directly, honestly. These censorship feel-good systemic/formulaic methods are anaesthetics that are self-stunting.
Avoidance of pain Is falling into a hedonists' path.

"Are we not, with this tremendous objective of obliterating all the sharp edges of life, well on the way to turning mankind into sand? Sand! Small, soft, round, unending sand! Is that your ideal, you heralds of the sympathetic affections?" [N.]

What a shame...

Lyssa wrote:

What a shame...

"Shame is worse than death" (Bhagavad Gita), so don't be ashamed!

I am not confusing anything for anything. I put it here because it fitted the context. In my Esotericism topic, I just post western hermetic esoterics. And I stated nothing else than that the above is the opposite of Paganism. It's critique of Psychology.

Hannibal in the movies was a psychiatrist, but didn't consider Psychology a Science. I mentioned, that in some regard he might have Scientology knowledge. So Satyr asked me about Scientology and I showed him Huna instead. That's all.

Aren't you hiding behind your books and references/links? Behind your intellectualism? Your academia? Isn't that also a form of hedonism? Of not confronting pain?

Lyssa wrote:

This is why I said, Laconian seems to confuse self-healing psychiatrics for philosophical activity.

In what way do you feel restricted, this being a philosophy forum? Why doesn't huna belong here in your opinion?

Quote :

You can't heal or mature, without confronting your past head on, directly, honestly.

But you can also loose yourself in dwelling in the past. But you are correct. And in this way Scientology offers more than Huna. It integrates some more aspects of life.

Quote :

These censorship feel-good systemic/formulaic methods are anaesthetics that are self-stunting.
Avoidance of pain Is falling into a hedonists' path.

Your academia is pretentious. And avoiding pain. Huna helps to confront life. It's not for winning discussions or debates. Arguments. It's to live life more lightly. Without all of that academic bullshit. All those heavy stones, that are not your own. Who do you carry them for? Your ancestors? They'd probably want you to live lightly. Why wouldn't they.

What is Philosophy to you? Does it have to be heavy? Difficult to understand? Big words? Lots of verbosity?

Laconian wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

This is why I said, Laconian seems to confuse self-healing psychiatrics for philosophical activity.

In what way do you feel restricted, this being a philosophy forum? Why doesn't huna belong here in your opinion?

Is that what I'm saying? Twerp.

Quote :

But you can also loose yourself in dwelling in the past. But you are correct. And in this way Scientology offers more than Huna. It integrates some more aspects of life.

Sometimes one needs to lose oneself in order to find oneself. N. expanded your predicament into the three kinds of Histories; I'm sure you are aware of it.

Quote :

Your academia is pretentious. And avoiding pain. Huna helps to confront life. It's not for winning discussions or debates. Arguments. It's to live life more lightly. Without all of that academic bullshit. All those heavy stones, that are not your own. Who do you carry them for? Your ancestors? They'd probably want you to live lightly. Why wouldn't they.

What is Philosophy to you? Does it have to be heavy? Difficult to understand? Big words? Lots of verbosity?

Your irrelevant accusations at me do not make facts vanish away or fade away. And fact is Serge and Long both openly associate Huna principles with New Age Xt. and such bullshite "cosmotheisms".

If co-operative, non-injurious, harmless living [cleverly marketed as "skillful living"] and avoidance of pain for a happy and peaceful co-existence is your idea of "Living Lightly", you are nothing but a decadent hedonist at the level of the common animal.

Philosophy IS about winning, dominating, exploiting, persuading, etc. etc. It is Grand Politics. Grand, if one considers oneself as an Artist sculpting away at life, at oneself, at the world...

One must be equal to one's tasks, to want to be equal... and so one assumes burdens, responsibilities, duties, to see how much one can carry, endure. The noble self sets itself standards from within itself - how far it keeps on overcoming and surpassing its own self. It can consider itself Equal Only to its own tasks... the rest is as good as slavery.
Philosophy is such self-love. It is the spiritualization of a noble lust to Spare Nothing - not your past, not what's before, not what's after - to affirm everything in one's way and Honour Oneself in Everything.

Satyr's explained on this forum somewhere what it means to "Live Lightly"; read him if you want to.

Laconian wrote:

Aren't you hiding behind your books and references/links? Behind your intellectualism? Your academia? Isn't that also a form of hedonism? Of not confronting pain?

Yea, you are the right person to psychoanalyze me. Your observations are just what I need.

Already said I'm only heart-core. I'm a heart-person. It is my spirit alone that speaks.
I have no intellect and do not consider myself one.

My academia? Who am I representing? News to me!

I hide behind books from fear of pain? Ha
Does everyone look like you, to you? Do you think everyone reads for self-improvement? For a happy life?
How does N. say it? What is poison to some, could be a stimulant to another....?
Is it possible I could be reading books to see what I could do WITHOUT? or to see how much distress I can take?  
I have a pluto-nic nature; go figure.

Laconian wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

What a shame...

"Shame is worse than death" (Bhagavad Gita), so don't be ashamed!

I say shame at all those teachings that try to Dwarf Man, that try to chop him off into a "clean, neat, bloodless" anaemic being, into ghosts.

Quote :

I am not confusing anything for anything. I put it here because it fitted the context. In my Esotericism topic, I just post western hermetic esoterics. And I stated nothing else than that the above is the opposite of Paganism. It's critique of Psychology.
Hannibal in the movies was a psychiatrist, but didn't consider Psychology a Science. I mentioned, that in some regard he might have Scientology knowledge. So Satyr asked me about Scientology and I showed him Huna instead. That's all.

And who said you were confusing anything, twerp? Always manipulating my words.
I said Huna principles were basically Hedonist.
You said, Hedonist how?
I said like this.

Clear?

Lyssa wrote:

Fool, Philosophy IS about winning, dominating, exploiting, persuading, etc. etc. It is Grand Politics. Grand, if one considers oneself as an Artist sculpting away at life, at oneself, at the world...

But you are a woman! Does this then apply to you also? Dominating? Exploiting? Persuading?

Laconian wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Fool, Philosophy IS about winning, dominating, exploiting, persuading, etc. etc. It is Grand Politics. Grand, if one considers oneself as an Artist sculpting away at life, at oneself, at the world...

But you are a woman! Does this then apply to you also? Dominating? Exploiting? Persuading?

Never claimed I was a philosopher.

I could be wrong, I could be really wrong, but I have noticed the children of extremely intelligent women end up with children who are extremely intelligent but with weak hearts. When the heart is weak, all the intelligence and intellect he could produce can cause change, but it can't Rule, transform. I never push myself; this intellectual ''self-real-ization' is not worth the cost of bequeathing a weak heart to the world.
I only build heart-muscle; its my only concern. I'm content with this much.

When I step on your toes, it is as a matter of Taste that I speak, not as an intellectual or philosopher. "I" would be ashamed adapting/adopting wisdoms of races and peoples that are not my Own, no matter how much brilliance and inspiration of ideas and variegation of thoughts they promise me. One already has all that one needs to have. The best things come from the tighest, and deprived spots, if there's enough heart. But that is me. And I do not apologize for looking down on your approach and sensibility.

You have your own place under the sun. And I say, do your best.

Satyr wrote:

Excellent...now explain how, in reference to what is stated in the book about the world, this changes something.

How so? What does it change?

For your comparison: the first book in two different versions (from the internet), I am no native english speaker, but the first one sounds more like the German version, from my feeling:


"The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer, translated by R B Haldane and J. Kemp
First Book:

§ 1

"THE world is my idea":— this is a truth which holds good for everything that lives and knows, though man alone can bring it into reflective and abstract consciousness. If he really does this, he has attained to philosophical wisdom. It then becomes clear and certain to him that what he knows is not a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea, i.e., only in relation to something else, the consciousness, which is himself. If any truth can be asserted a priori, it is this: for it is the expression of the most general form of all possible and thinkable experience: a form which is more general than time, or space, or causality, for they all presuppose it; and each of these, which we have seen to be just so many modes of the principle of sufficient reason, is valid only for a particular class of ideas; whereas the antithesis of object and subject is the common form of all these classes, is that form under which alone any idea of whatever kind it may be, abstract or intuitive, pure or empirical, is possible and thinkable. No truth therefore is more certain, more independent of all others, and less in need of proof than this, that all that exists for knowledge, and therefore this whole world, is only object in relation to subject/perception of a perceiver, in a word, idea. This is obviously true of the past and the future, as well as of the present, of what is farthest off, as of what is near; for it is true of time and space themselves, in which alone these distinctions arise. All that in any way belongs or can belong to the world is inevitably thus conditioned through the subject, and exists only for the subject. The world is idea.

This truth is by no means new. It was implicitly involved in the sceptical reflections from which Descartes started. Berkeley, however, was the first who distinctly enunciated it, and by this he has rendered a permanent service to philosophy, even though the rest of his teaching should not endure. Kant's primary mistake was the neglect of this principle, as is shown in the appendix. How early again this truth was recognised by the wise men of India, appearing indeed as the fundamental tenet of the Vedanta philosophy ascribed to Vyasa, is pointed out by Sir William Jones in the last of his essays: "On the philosophy of the Asiatics" (Asiatic Researches, vol. iv., p. 164), where he says, "The fundamental tenet of the Vedanta school consisted not in denying the existence of matter, that is, of solidity, impenetrability, and extended figure (to deny which would be lunacy), but in correcting the popular notion of it, and in contending that it has no essence independent of mental perception; that existence and perceptibility are convertible terms." These words adequately express the compatibility of empirical reality and transcendental ideality.

In this first book, then, we consider the world only from this side, only so far as it is idea. The inward reluctance with which any one accepts the world as merely his idea, warns him that this view of it, however true it may be, is nevertheless one-sided, adopted in consequence of some arbitrary abstraction. And yet it is a conception from which he can never free himself. The defectiveness of this view will be corrected in the next book by means of a truth which is not so immediately certain as that from which we start here; a truth at which we can arrive only by deeper research and more severe abstraction, by the separation of what is different and the union of what is identical. This truth, which must be very serious and impressive if not awful to every one, is that a man can also say and must say, "the world is my will."

In this book, however, we must consider separately that aspect of the world from which we start, its aspect as knowable, and therefore, in the meantime, we must, without reserve, regard all presented objects, even our own bodies (as we shall presently show more fully), merely as ideas, and call them merely ideas. By so doing we always abstract from will (as we hope to make clear to every one further on), which by itself constitutes the other aspect of the world. For as the world is in one aspect entirely idea, so in another it is entirely will. A reality which is neither of these two, but an object in itself (into which the thing in itself has unfortunately dwindled in the hands of Kant), is the phantom of a dream, and its acceptance is an ignis fatuus in philosophy."


and the Payne Version:

""The world is my representation": this is a truth valid with reference to every living and knowing being, although man alone can bring it into reflective, abstract consciousness. If he really does so, philosophical discernment has dawned on him. It then becomes clear and certain to him that he does not know a sun· and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world around him is there only as representation, in other words, only in reference to another thing, namely that which represents, and this is himself. If any truth can be expressed a priori, it is this; for it is the statement of that form of all possible and conceivable experience, a form that is more general than all others, than time, space, and causality, for all these presuppose it. While each of these forms, which we have recognized as so many particular modes of the principle of sufficient reason, is valid only for a particular class of representations, the division into object and subject, on the other hand, is the common form of all those classes; it is that form under which alone any representation, of whatever kind it be, abstract or intuitive, pure or empirical, is generally possible and conceivable. Therefore no truth is more certain, more independent of all others, and less in need of proof than this, namely that everything that exists for knowledge, and hence the whole of this world, is only object in relation to the subject, perception of the perceiver, in a word, representation. Naturally this holds good of the present as well as of the past and future, of what is remotest as well as of what is nearest; for it holds good of time and space themselves, in which alone all these distinctions arise. Everything that in any way belongs and can belong to the world is inevitably associated with this being-conditioned by the subject, and it exists only for the subject. The world is representation.

This truth is by no means new. It was to be found already in the sceptical reflections from which Descartes started. But Berkeley was the first to enunciate it positively, and he has thus rendered an immortal service to philosophy, although the remainder of his doctrines cannot endure. Kant's first mistake was the neglect of this principle, as is pointed out in the Appendix. On the other hand, how early this basic truth was recognized by the sages of India, since it appears as the fundamental tenet of the Vedanta philosophy ascribed to Vyasa, is proved by Sir William Jones in the last of his essays: "On the Philosophy of the Asiatics" (Asiatic Researches, vol. IV, p. 164): "The fundamental tenet of the Vedanta school consisted not in denying the existence of matter, that is, of solidity, impenetrability, and extended figure (to deny which would be lunacy), but in correcting the popular notion of it, and in contending that it has no essence independent of mental perception; that existence and perceptibility are convertible terms." These words adequately express the compatibility of empirical reality with transcendental ideality.

Thus in this first book we consider the world only from the abovementioned angle, only in so far as it is representation. The inner reluctance with which everyone accepts the world as his mere representation warns him that this consideration, quite apart from its truth, is nevertheless one-sided, and so is occasioned by some arbitrary abstraction. On the other hand, he can never withdraw from this acceptance. However, the one-sidedness of this consideration will be made good in the following book through a truth that is not so immediately certain as that from which we start here. Only deeper investigation, more difficult abstraction, the separation of what is different, and the combination of what is identical can lead us to this truth. This truth, which must be very serious and grave if not terrible to everyone, is that a man also can say and must say: "The world is my will."

But in this first book it is necessary to consider separately that side of the world from which we start, namely the side of the knowable, and accordingly to consider without reserve all existing objects, nay even our own bodies (as we shall discuss more fully later on), merely as representation, to call them mere representation. That from which we abstract here is invariably only the will, as we hope will later on be clear to everyone. This will alone constitutes the other aspect of the world, for this world is, on the one side, entirely representation, just as, on the other, it is entirely will. But a reality that is neither of these two, but .an object in itself (into which also Kant's thing-in-itself has unfortunately degenerated in his hands), is the phantom of a dream, and its acceptance is an ignis fatuus in philosophy."

Is this true?
Are they starting a T.V. show called Hannibal?

Hannibal + Lecter = Warrior + Reader/Thinker
- so you have the archetype of a Brahma-Kshatriya or Priest-King[Prytanes] or Intellectual-Warrior - Evola talks about that original primordiality of Action and Contemplation never having been separate.


The Stoic cannibal

[Chrysippus from his Republic] (I) 'If from the living person a part should be cut off which is edible, we should not bury it or dispose of it in some other way, but consume it, so that from our parts a new one may be generated.' (2) In his books On proper function, he says explicitly concerning the burial of parents: "when parents die, we should use the simplest methods of burial, as though the body, like the nails aor teeth or hair, were nothing to us, and we need give no care or attention to anything like that. So too, if the flesh is edible, people should use it, as they should use one of their own parts such as a severed foot and the like.' LS pp 66-7
[The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the principal sources, with philosophical commentary. By A. A. Long, D. N. Sedley]

Thus, Montaigne characterizes Chrysippus and Zenon, the chief proponents of Stoicism as cannibals:
Chrysippus et Zenon, chefs de la secte stoïcque, ont bien pensé qu'il n'y avoit aulcun mal de se servir de nostre charongne à quoy que ce feust pour nostre besoing et d'en tirer de la nourriture; comme nos ancestres, estants assiégez par César en la ville d'Alexia, se résolurent de soustenir la faim de ce siège par les corps des vieillards, des femmes et aultres personnes inutiles au combat.
[Source Montaigne Essais]

Chrysippus and Zeno, chiefs of the Stoic sect, were of opinion that there was no harm in making use of our dead carcasses, in what kind soever, for our necessity, and in feeding upon them too; as our ancestors, who, being besieged by Caesar in the city of Alexia, resolved to sustain the famine of the siege with the bodies of their old men, women, and other persons, who were incapable of bearing arms.
[The works of Michael de Montaigne trans. William Hazlitt]

Epigrams

Satyr wrote:

Is this true?
Are they starting a T.V. show called Hannibal?

Yeah, its already 7 episodes in, 8th tonight. They already banned one of the episodes, but you can view it online. I'm shocked NBC actually allowed a show like this on their network, altogether. If you want to know where you can watch them, private message me.

I've watched a few episodes.
Not that impressed. It may get better.

They rely more on gore and shock and awe than content...and nobody can match Hopkins and his performance in the second movie rendition of the character.

Well, from what I read, the shows not going anywhere for while. At minimum, they plan to have 3 more seasons of it.

I just noticed the movie series genre was crime, drama, thriller. The tv series is crime, drama, horror. Perhaps that explains the emphasis on gore.

Based on whats been released, an emphasis on eye candy has been going on for a while. Perhaps it's a better marketing strategy since its more in demand.

Hopkins is legendary.

Quote :

"The essence of the worst, the true asafoetida of the human spirit, is not found in the Iron Maiden or the whetted edge; Elemental Ugliness is found in the faces of the crowd." [Thomas Harris, Hannibal, 1999]

Quote :

"Lecter himself is located at the heart of a deep labyrinth, surrounded by a continuum of more and more broken men, the last of whom, "multiple Migs", seems to have been evolutionarily de-evolved through his proximity to Lecter into a mad monkey-man. Lecter is encased in thick glass with small air holes at the top, yet he is in control of every moment of their meeting. Lecter's unstoppable insight tears into her; he identifies her immediately, then goes on to detail her autobiography as though he could gaze straight into the darkest corners of her soul."
Death, the Other

Quote :

"My primary goal is to convince you, not only of the primal link between Dionysus and Hannibal Lecter, as both Christ and Anti-Christ in Red Dragon, but of how Euripides' masterpiece The Bacchae is the driving influence behind the Lecter trilogy. The following is taken from Phillip Vellacott's introduction to his own 1954 translation of the Ancient Greek tragedy. 

"In all mystery religions, with their secret rites and initiations, the central notion is that of manifesting the nature of the god to his worshippers. In the prologue to The Bacchae Dionysus announces his intention of manifesting himself as a god to those who have at first rejected him. Throughout the action the verb 'to show' and its correlatives 'to recognise' and 'to understand' are constantly repeated. And two distinct processes are implied: first, the acknowledgement of Dionysus' existence as a divinity; and secondly the understanding of the potential nature of this divinity- of the lawless and pitiless cruelty latent in human nature, which may be liberated when man's 'rational' part labours to produce violence rather than gentleness, organises war instead of peace. In the course of the manifestation the language of the play presents as it were a series of moral claims made by the new cult, and the different appearance of these claims when revealed in the actions of Bacchic worshippers. 
It is as though the Dionysiac apostle said to the world of Euripides: "Civilization is diseased; get away from civilization and have a sound mind. Your search for cleverness is relative and conventional; discover your oneness with Nature, and possess absolute wisdom. Civilization is responsible for ugliness, anxiety, and malice; escape from it to beauty, peace, and gentleness. The civilized world is unjust; Nature is just. A city life is materialistic, inhuman; go to the mountains and discover that man is divine'. The play shows how each of these claims, if scorned or opposed with violence, develops its own perversion. Rigid resistance evokes a like response: soundness of mind is revealed as imperviousness to pity; wisdom as knowing how to take revenge; beauty as natural, i.e fortuitous and amoral; gentleness and peace as liable without warning to give place to ferocious violence; justice as personal vindictiveness; divinity as being superhuman in power, sub-human in nature, showing that the beast in man is worse than bestial, that the horned god is no other than a fiend." 

The Bacchae, like Red Dragon, sets to war two opposing sides of the nature of man. Pentheus, the king of Thebes, who attempts to imprison the god of frenzy, Dionysus, is the official representative of order. He is concerned only with law and the organisation of battle to protect the conventions of sex and city. Dionysus, on the other hand, desires worship of abandon, provokes instinct and the life of the senses. E.R Dodds in his translation states: "The 'moral' of The Bacchae is that we ignore at our peril the demand of the human spirit for the Dionysiac experience. Those who repress the demand in themselves or refuse its satisfaction to others transform it by their act into a power of disintegration and destruction." 
...Like Dionysus, and also our impressions of Lecter, the hyper intelligent psychiatrist psychopath and the 'small lithe man' (p.49) the Dragon, who is covered in body tattoos and relaxes in a kimino, is consumed with sexual power. "Dionysus (in the ancient world) was often represented in feminine dress, an asexual being among his female maenads and the half-bestial satyrs." (P.54 The Classical World, Robin Lane Fox) "
Hannibal Lecter Forum

Quote :

"The Krendler and Verger figures in Hannibal are emblematic of a much wider sense of cultural decline. They are the exaggerated representatives of what Nietzsche has referred to as the “uglification” of modernity, of a general decadence and both moral and aesthetic disintegration that is imaged throughout Harris’s book as the contemporary condition. This is one of the great and, again, risky, divergences from the earlier novels. Hannibal produces a culture so debased that it is hardly worth the effort of saving — a devaluation that has highly significant results, producing the ambiguity, for instance, with which we must now read Hannibal’s carefree slaughter of the world’s vulgarians: for preference, we are told, Hannibal will always choose the vulgar as victim. This emptying of value from the contemporary world becomes confirmed not just in the broad narratology of a text where order, professionalism and authority are vanquished, but in a whole range of narrative detail — the representation of fast food, for example, “slippery meat and processed cheese food,” and of mass travel where the members of a package tour group rebreath “the farts and exhalations of others in economically reprocessed air, a variation on the ditch-liquor principle established by cattle and pig merchants in the 1950s” (290). Or, again, there is the reference with which this essay begins, where the narrator sees nothing less than “Elemental Ugliness in the faces of the crowd.” Such perspectives collude to designate a modernity that is a perversion of  “real” life. They suggest a highly superior angle on things and this becomes the characteristic position not just of Hannibal the character, but of the text itself.
It is against this vulgarized contemporaneity that the new Dr. Lecter now takes on a firmer shape. Much less of a bizarre puzzle than in the earlier fictions, he is significantly filled out in Hannibal and the central dimension is his status as a culturally displaced figure. A landed aristocrat by birth, whose family and their estates have been overrun by the Nazis, he becomes Europeanized and humanized, both as the traumatized brother/son, whose parents have been killed and sister eaten by soldiers, but also as the lost (last?) aristocrat..."
Humanization of Lecter

- - -

Quote :

""Hannibal Lecter" literally connotes the "conqueror reader" (Hannibal the Conqueror plus Lecter, "reader" in Latin). This conqueror-reader conquers victims (like Starling) by reading them; he reads and so consumes victim and patient alike."
Death, the Other

Quote :

"In this category of fabulous beasts, Lecter represents the Devourer, a horrific eating god with mythic examples in Kronos of Greece, Amemait of Egypt, the Peist of Ireland, Kali in India, and the whale in the story of Jonah. On the surface, the actions of these consuming deities can be seen as terrifying, but in a metaphoric psychological sense, their chomping through the flesh of those they eat represents cutting through the ignorance of the unenlightened ego that is obsessed with protecting itself. The Devourer demonstrates an eternal principle of the monstrous nature of life that we almost never think about: life can only survive by killing and eating other life.
Because we gloss over this prime condition of life, the function of the Devourer is to put this truth right back in our face: Life lives on death! You too are here because you chomp through other living things. Before your birth, as you were building your own body in the womb, you were consuming part of your mother. When you swallow food (life), your stomach breaks it down and it becomes part of you. You wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the fact that you eat life. And one day you will become food."
The Hero's journey

The image of the (mind)Devourer of extreme intelligence recalls the figure of Kali as mentioned above, of one with a devouring tongue hanging out, wearing a garland of skulls that is said to represent all the Sanskrit alphabets.
Evola remarks in the Yoga of Power, Kali is called such [black] as Time represents the 'devouring of forms and all becoming', which from an Apollonian perspective is what the disease of Modernism is - a samsaric current.
Banal speech severed from life is worn as a garland of skulls. 

Lecter hates the rude. 

Hannotations:

Hannibal

Silence of the Lambs

Good Will Hunting wrote:

Will: So what's this? A Taster's Choice moment between guys? This is really nice. You got a thing for swans? Is this like a fetish? It's something, like, maybe we need to devote some time to?
Sean: I thought about what you said to me the other day, about my painting. Stayed up half the night thinking about it. Something occurred to me and I fell into a deep, peaceful sleep and haven't thought about you since. You know what occurred to me?
Will: No.
Sean: You're just a kid. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Will: Why, thank you.
Sean: It's all right. You've never been out of Boston.
Will: Nope.
Sean: So if I asked you about art you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written...Michelangelo? (beat) You know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. Seen that.....If I asked you about women you'd probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. I ask you about war, and you'd probably--uh--throw Shakespeare at me, right? "Once more into the breach, dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap and watched him gasp his last breath, looking to you for help. And if I asked you about love y'probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone could level you with her eyes. Feeling like! God put an angel on earth just for you...who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it’s like to be her angel and to have that love for her to be there forever. Through anything. Through cancer. You wouldn't know about sleeping sittin’ up in a hospital room for two months holding her hand because the doctors could see in your eyes that the term visiting hours don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, because that only occurs when you love something more than you love yourself. I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. I look at you; I don't see an intelligent, confident man; I see a cocky, scared shitless kid. But you're a genius, Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine and you ripped my fuckin' life apart. You're an orphan right? (Will nods)
Do you think I'd know the first thing about how hard ! your life has been, how you feel, who you are because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally, I don't give a shit about all that, because you know what? I can't learn anything from you I can't read in some fuckin' book. Unless you wanna talk about you, who you are. And I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't wanna do that, do you, sport? You're terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief. (Sean stands and walks away.)

This scene represents a contra-Hannibal disposition.
The mystification of man, and of his choices; man as a divine mystery, pure, similar in its needs, but infinitely complex because of the many tiny instances of its experiences.
Man as a mystery, even to himself, on the level of organic behavior.
Surrender to the sensations, which can never be understood rationally.

The Christian would tell you that Christ's "truth" can only be felt by surrendering to him...and cannot be rationalized - God's mystery becomes comprehensible only through emotional vulnerability; the "positive" emotions rather than the "negative" ones, being the ones that facilitate blind love, and surrender with no demands.
The moment made into an emotional experience one has to go through, and nobody can understand from a detached distance.
In Hannibal's eyes the other is an open book; his every action, choice, exposing him.
In the Hannibal-like genius of Will, the other must retain his/her divine mystique.
Will's "scary" mind must be humanized, domesticated, connected to the herd moralities.
Will must feel "vulnerable" before the female - she being the herd's filtering judgment.

Her approval means Will's entry into the group, as another unfathomable, but benevolent mystery - a reflection of God.

The usage of fear is interesting, because it is typically Modern.
Fear for the "genius" of Will, is placed upon will, as a fear of the simplicity of the average.
Fear for the unfathomable twisted to a fear of the fathomable.
In Christianity "fear of god" is used as an explanation for why some refuse to submit to his irrationality.
The irrational is turned into the mysteriously complex. Refusing to capitulate to it, means one is afraid, feeling vulnerable, when to give-in is the only way to comprehend it - via emotion.
Fear that Will might be right, and that he sees beneath the pretenses, is twisted to a fear, on Will's part, of the presumed complexities behind every choice made - even by the simplest, average, mind (shaming).    

In the speech Sean equates his own mind with that of Will.
His choice in office decor is unfathomable, reflecting myriads of emotional experiences Will cannot relate to.
He appeals to Will being an orphan, strumming the emotional guitar, to soften his critical judgments.
The reward is Will’s acceptance into the normal life, leaving behind his “outsider” status, threatening the shared pretenses, as the bar scene indicates.

Good Will Hunting wrote:

Clark (Scott Winters): I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian precapitalism...
Chuckie (Ben Affleck): Let me tell you something, all right...
Will: (interrupting) Of course that is your contention...
Clark: Hold on a second...
Will: You're a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian Historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna' be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you're gonna' be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna' last until next year, you're gonna' be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about ya know, the Pre-Revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization.
Clark: Well, as a matter of fact I won't because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social...
Will: (interrupting) Wood drastically... Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers. "Work in Essex County", page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that you thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage, and then pretend, you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girl and embarrass my friend? You see, the sad thing about a guy like you is that in 50 years, you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped a 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have the degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive thru on our way to a skiing trip.
Will: (laughing) Yeah, maybe, but at least I won't be unoriginal.

The average member of the herd wants to mystify himself, to feel, at least, that he is just as unfathomable as that "smart guy" who says things it cannot comprehend.
And when his education is threatened by exposing it to the possibility that it is all imitated and regurgitated "understanding" the threatening culprit has to be reduced to a brute, serving french-fries at some fast food joint, or, it must be assimilated, through the female, or through the conduit of common “understanding,” the kindly, well-meaning, everyday-man professor, into a protective role.

In the bar scene Sean, the professor who contributes to Clark's regurgitated understanding, is accused via Will's uncovering of the truth of it.
Clark simply repeats data, so as to impress - to get a female, or a job that will nicre4se his access to females.
Will is condemned to being on the periphery - with fewer options.
Sean offers him access if he surrenders to being blind to what the signs indicate - to the pretenses hidden in the decorative pictures; books, and diplomas, also used as displays pieces.
According to Sean's logic Clark's choice to confront Chuckie, wanting to embarrass him, is also unfathomable - we can never fully comprehend the intricate details behind the choice of behavior....Clark is mysterious - or so Sean would have us believe.

But here we see how it is only some motives, some emotions, which are mystifying.
In the Platonic allegory of the charioteer, symbolizing the human psyche, one of the horses is unruly. It represents the "negative", masculine, passions - the thymotic ones.
Placing the other horse behind reason, represented by the charioteer, as a god of Love, holding onto the reigns - Priestly psyche Will>Reason>Passion - we realize how "love" (as God) is mystified. It is behind reason's gaze, above reason's control.
The feminine, erotic, is mystified.
The male, thymotic, is degraded, exposed, demystified.  

Will's superior reason must be controlled by a "Will", that is behind him, beyond him, above him...beyond his capacity to see.
The "good" Will, is harnessed to Love - Love being pure, Platonic, cleansed of all lust - the "good" passions are sanctified.  

What is "hunted" is Will's goodness, his "good will", his feminine erotic passions, rather than his "bad will", his masculine thymotic ones. The latter are exposed, the former covered in mystery, which can only be experienced as emotion, sensation.
Reason is feminized.
The individual becomes pure, unfathomable willing, controlled by Love, the deified emotion/passion, which now controls and directs reason (domesticates it), by riding upon the thymotic passions.

Hannibal's cold, rational, dominance of both erotic and thymotic is domesticated by releasing only some of the passions, so as to be used to manipulate reason - warming/softening it with erotic/lust, which is purified into Love, by eliminating all its motives and evolutionary purposes.

Will, as a potential Hannibal, is softened, by releasing eros, the feminine, from his reasoning.
The masculine is exposed so that he demystifies his own masculine nature – the thymotic is thoroughly exposed and with it Will's own motives and baseness.
Sean's speech is a testimony to the professor's commitment to the feminine.
He remains loyal to his wife, even after her death.
The erotic in his choices is never to be exposed, demystified. He warns Will to do the same, or face the consequences; a warning to the audience.
“Do not demystify, rationalize, the erotic, the feminine, but only the thymotic and masculine.
Sanctify it and then surrender to it.
Fear of the unknown should become fear of the known outcome: exclusion, rejection, being kept outside the group.”

Season 3 has long been in succession and you bastards didn't tell me. Is my memory that bad or is this latest season incomparable to the preceding two with its short, awkward sequences and abrupt and distracting noise instrumentals and mechanically enunciated lines which divert attention away from the storyline?