A.N.U.S.

American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

The root of human failure

02 06 11 - 12:57


The Sympathetic Fallacy is the one that goes: “I feel like this, therefore the world is (or should be) like this too.”

- Sympathetic Fallacy Definition, from "The Last Days?" by John Derbyshire, The National Review


We have giant brains. Our tendency is to fall into them.

We know the world through our mental objects. We can mistake those mental tokens for reality itself.

This leads to a state alternately called fatalism, narcissism, and solipsism: finding the world bad because it is not our own minds.



To a nihilist, this is the fundamental human fallacy, parallel to the "sympathetic fallacy" mentioned above (note: sympathetic fallacy was once taught in most literature classes; with the decline of literature, it is no no longer taught and replaced with the "affective fallacy," which is the notion that emotion in a story is important; we wonder why such a neutering occurred).

People want the world to be part of their own minds. They want their thought-objects to replace reality. The thought objects are under their CONTROL, while reality is not.

Most people who become dissidents, activists, etc. in our modern time take another path. They believe that belief itself is a problem, so they limit themselves to a anthrocentric perception fo the world, where humans are in control and entirely unrelated to nature.



Materialism denies any patterning in common between humans and the world. It seems to deny solipsism, but provides a handy shortcut back to solipsism by making the world's patterns of organization entirely foreign to our minds.

Luckily, idealism rectified this situation to some degree by pointing out the harmony between thought-process and the natural laws of the world.

However, that in turn is abused by populists, who know what their audience wants to hear: "The world is anything you imagine it to be."

This reality-optional view -- called relativism, pluralism and equality -- is very popular with those who have trouble with the world. It is not what they wanted, so they wish to revert to solipsism, so they create it out of idealism.

Enter nihilism.



If you want the boneyard bottom line of philosophy, it's nihilism. Nihilism is like philosophizing with a sawed-off shotgun.

In nihilism, we are entirely subject to the world, including from inside.

This means that the world is not inscrutable, but our thoughts about it are often confused.

Further, the two are not separate. Events occur in the world, and we react to them like animals aware of their own mortality and risk at play.

So we must adopt the principle of nihilism, and develop it to its logical extreme.



This is a worldview that is more complex, and most people who try to approach it in a linear fashion will fuck it up. In addition, 4/5 of even our brightest populations will fuck it up by lacking the circuits to comprehend it (doubly screwed up by the Dunning-Kruger/Downing effect, whereby the stupid are confident and the smart, underconfident).

Futurist traditionalism adopts the Kantian idea that we move through a vast field of data, and through our relative interaction with its parts (and their interaction with each other), create a spaciotemporal dimension. Time and space are "relatively" consistent owing to the interaction of parts that are not us; however, our experience of them is intensely internal and we must be skeptical of it. Even more, this shows us that by the nature of relativity, time and space have a precursor. For objects or forces to be defined in a relative space, they must have an opposite to create their boundaries. This means time and space are not defined by each other, but are each effects of another state.

This Kantian data field corresponds to Plato's world of forms, Myattian acausal space, and illustrates the importance of Schopenhauer's principle of sufficient reason: that which is informationally different is unique, and thus outside of placement in the spaciotemporal, has a secondary role which may be more or less importance than its position in context.

The populists will fuck all of this up of course, and turn it into absurd fantasies about heaven and a moral balance where the meek inherit the earth. If you're an idiot, by all means endorse such ideas.

For those who are looking for more interesting fodder, this opens up possibilities, and yet remains coherent with the nihilism that keeps us from confusing our thoughts with reality and thus drifting into crowd-pleasing, ego-flattering and drama-inducing solipsism.

eight comments

JesusEqualityFreedom
Shouldn't the self remain a subset of the proper world within the Futurist Tradionalist view, with the 'world' being a subset of the proper world? JesusEqualityFreedom - 02-06-’11 19:51
ANUS FAN #1 LOL YAY!
This was incredible!!! Further develop this into a main page article, like "Reality is Nihilism", ect. It's been about a year since the last one!! ANUS FAN #1 LOL YAY! - 02-06-’11 22:23
you probably wouldn't pass undergrad intro to philosophy
Your writing is very unclear. I take that as a defeasible reason to believe that your thinking lacks clarity. There are a lot of terms here that you need to define and a lot of things that need to be explained.

For one thing, what your diagrams are supposed to be illustrating is not clear. What does the materialism diagram illustrate? That the self, according to materialism, is not contained in the world? That wouldn't make any sense, since materialism doesn't deny that. So then there is this business about patterning. So presumably, then, it's supposed to illustrate this idea that, according to materialism, the world's patterns of organization are entirely foreign to the mind (whatever the hell *that* means). But then you go on to explicate nihilism partly in terms of the non-separateness of the mind and the world. So is the nihilism diagram supposed to be illustrating *that*? Furthermore, materialism doesn't even deny that point anyway. But there's also this business about how "the world is not inscrutable, but our thoughts about it are often confused." Again, that's consistent with materialism. Lastly, there's that remark that, according to nihilism, "we are entirely subject to the world, including from the inside." First of all, you need to define the expression "entirely subject to the world" because for the purposes of philosophical discussion, this expression is definitely not clear enough in its meaning. Second of all, given whatever interpretation you choose for that expression, how is the claim inconsistent with materialism? Basically, it's really not clear how nihilism is supposed to be distinct from materialism. you probably wouldn't pass undergrad intro to philosophy - 03-06-’11 15:38
Doesn't have a degree in philosophy
"What does the materialism diagram illustrate? That the self, according to materialism, is not contained in the world? That wouldn’t make any sense, since materialism doesn’t deny that. So then there is this business about patterning. So presumably, then, it’s supposed to illustrate this idea that, according to materialism, the world’s patterns of organization are entirely foreign to the mind (whatever the hell that means)." I would say that in action materialism does consider the self separate from the world, not consciously as materialism is a lifestyle rather than any kind of philosophy. Materialism denies the greater world as it assumes that happiness comes from objects that don't bring any kind of real happiness, don't go with you when you die, etc...The "world's patterns of organization" being foreign I suppose could simply mean that, again, they don't accompany you after death and that something like a tornado or fire could very easily take away all your shiny toys without so much as an "I'm sorry". It's probably safe to say most of the people trampling each other at Wal-mart on X-mas don't think about this. Materialism can't really "deny" anything...and actions do speak louder than words. A materialistic lifestyle also fails to take into account the environmental impact of all of this buying and discarding of manufactured items. That is definitely the most blatant "denial" of the world. "But then you go on to explicate nihilism partly in terms of the non-separateness of the mind and the world. So is the nihilism diagram supposed to be illustrating that?" The diagram was simply showing that the world, obviously, is greater than us. "Us" being humans (mind, body, soul, whatever). We came from this earth and by definition are a part of it. "But there’s also this business about how “the world is not inscrutable, but our thoughts about it are often confused.” Again, that’s consistent with materialism."... Nihilism is a way of recognizing that our thoughts are confused, materialism being one of the manifestations of this. "Lastly, there’s that remark that, according to nihilism, “we are entirely subject to the world, including from the inside.” First of all, you need to define the expression “entirely subject to the world” because for the purposes of philosophical discussion, this expression is definitely not clear enough in its meaning." How is this not clear in meaning...philosophically or otherwise? Our air, water, food, the raw materials we make our materialistic crap out of, the list goes on and on. We're pretty much at the mercy of naturally occurring phenomenon like a hurricane or the above mentioned tornado, and even when we fiddle with these things scientifically, there is inevitably some drawback or new problem that arises. Materialism itself is an outcome of technological advances, yet it continues unabated - this again is a "denial" of the world. "Second of all, given whatever interpretation you choose for that expression, how is the claim inconsistent with materialism? Basically, it’s really not clear how nihilism is supposed to be distinct from materialism." Are you kidding? Maybe you should read some of the articles, as they might help clarify the difference. Doesn't have a degree in philosophy - 04-06-’11 00:28
The real world
Gloria Clark, 62, was charged in the death of her 98-year-old mother in St. George, S.C., in December after the mother's body was found among squalid conditions at her home. Though Clark denied she had been neglectful, the mother's pet parrot might have disagreed. According to the police report, the parrot, in the mother's bedroom, continually squawked -- mimicking "Help me! Help me!" followed by the sound of laughter. [Post and Courier (Charleston, S.C.), 12-8-10] The real world - 04-06-’11 00:51
Levy_Spearmen
Blast! Foiled again! Wah-wah-waaaaah. Levy_Spearmen - 04-06-’11 09:06
fuck
"materialism is a lifestyle rather than any kind of philosophy"

What? I presumed that the writer was using the term 'materialism' to refer to a particular metaphysical thesis (presumably the thesis that there is exactly one kind of fundamental "stuff" in the world, namely physical stuff). His writing indicates that he's using the term in that sense rather than in the 'normative thesis/lifestyle choice' sense. fuck - 04-06-’11 20:02
Shit
I think the writer was operating on the assumption that most of the article's readers are familiar with the site's content, which would make splitting hairs about the article's terminology a little pointless. Shit - 04-06-’11 20:45


(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.