Which one do you prefer?

Which one do you prefer?

Attached: a.jpg (540x400, 47K)

Mundus. Orgy of the Will is too aggressive for me.

How come?

Mundus milennialis is original autism. Orgy of the will is just a Nietzsche knockoff.

orgy of the will is actually insightful. The obscurantists and hipsters will ultimately gravitate to their type (REI, being the fag he is). This might actually be a good time to show that everything he says is just misunderstanding after misunderstanding, all hidden under the veil of a thesaurus and jungian terminology.

>THE OTHER FOR THE SELF, AND THE SELF TOWARD THE OTHER, AND CONSCIOUSNESS BECOMES ITSELF
nothing becomes itself. Everything is itself. What is, is. You can say that something becomes conscious, but not that something becomes something. A thing is always itself.

>THE NORTH IS THE PRIME CARDINAL DIRECTION; SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, ARE DETERMINED IN RELATION TO THE NORTH [...] SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, ARE ORIENTATIONS
Everything is determined in relation to everything else. This shitty aphorism glosses this simple statement over with obscurantist vocabulary, while still confusing it and making it unclear: by not demonstrating that every direction can be and is a prime cardinal direction. But maybe mundus himself didn't even think that.

>MOST PARENT/OFFSPRING RELATIONSHIPS ARE SUSTAINED NOT BY LOVE, BUT BY ATTACHMENT, AND PERPETUATED NOT BY FURY, BUT BY HATRED.
doesn't define love, attachment, hatred, or fury anywhere, nor distinguish between any of them, which is essential especially when you are making a moral statement, for I could just destroy it by including the definition of fury in hatred, and including the definition of love in attachment.

>IMMERSION, AND EMERSION, ARE MUTUALLY OBVERSE MOVES, DIVERGING FROM THE STATUS QUO; IMMERSION AUGMENTS ATTACHMENT TO ILLUSION, LEADING TO DELUSION, AND TO CONSOLIDATION OF STANDING OF STATUS QUO; EMERSION SEVERS ATTACHMENT TO ILLUSION, LEADING TO REVELATION, AND TO TRANSCENDENCE OF STATUS QUO.
but sense-perception is illusion, and so is all thought. All structures and models we create to understand the world are illusory, and the more immersive they are, the more revelatory they are. To think escaping illusion would be revelatory would mean escaping sense perception and thought will lead to "revelation" and "transcendence". In that case, why haven't you severed your connection to illusion by killing yourself, REI? Because he has no idea what he is talking about.

I'm a pussy.

Mundus is the superior work, even if he's stopped updating it as much. Icycalm is correct about a lot as well, but too many of his conclusions are downright retarded. Once you manage to subliminate all the evil that OOTW tries to ram up your ass, you just kind of calm down and see that there are plenty of mistakes, which he tries to brush over by pretending not to care or outright lying. Rei is clearly a great person and aspires to a legitimate ideal, and has a better understanding of the metaphysics of the universe and of Christian thought. He is preferred by far.

>plenty of mistakes
where? Always see people talking about them, but have never seen anyone actually say them.

One is someone who has no idea what he's talking about while thinking big words are cool, while copying the other incorrectly.
The other is a megalomaniac Nietzschian who has a pretty good understanding of baudrillard.

>icycalm is evil bad man
>Rei has a better understanding of the metaphysics of the universe and of Christian thought
lol

I'm phoneposting so I'm not going to engage you like you want, but I will paraphrase to the best of my ability

one of his biggest fuckup which is enough to throw his entire book into the windows recycle bin is his conceptualization of the soul, which is something that "only the weak religions of the past needed". any legitimate metaphysical system recongizes "two selves", which would be the psychophysical self that contains the body, the "mind" (making another distinction with the brain and anything that affects the brain like drugs, experiences, health), and the conciousness. the consciousness is intermediate between the psychophysical self, while the second self is the soul that could be described as "powering" the body. if you bet on a horse in a a race, you should know that the jockey and the horse might be acting as one unit, but the jockey is separate from the horse. every legitimate school of metaphysics agrees with this, from christianity, to Egyptian theurgy, to vedanta, to buddhism, to platonism and neoplatonism. in his retarded materialistic viewpoint, the soul cannot be counted, therefore it is not useful, therefore it doesn't exist. it's a joke and he knows it. so I won't get into how that knowledge of the soul affects your morals and day to day life, but hopefully you can crack a window in your skull somewhere

both are outdated aphoristic pseudo-philosophy, who cares

Yeah, I like good people and people that actually understand their religion past the surface

the last part of this post is also quite malicious, since you properly understood that the phenomenal world is illusory (not to be misunderstood as not real), yet fail to understand that there is transcendent existence and understanding, that is not relegated to the senses, and is in fact everything BUT the senses, you arrogant little nerd

Mundus is really autistic, but it has some comfy gems when it isn't trying super hard to be esoteric.
>THE BEGINNING & END OF THE LAND, THE BEGINNING & END OF THE OCEAN: EVERYTHING ENDS & BEGINS AT THE BEACH.

Orgy of the Will just reads like a shittier Gay Science.

So penetration?

>yet fail to understand that there is transcendent existence and understanding, that is not relegated to the senses, and is in fact everything BUT the senses
and so can't be sensed, which means can't be perceived. It can't be sensed... but you have sensed it. How funny...

>>THE BEGINNING & END OF THE LAND, THE BEGINNING & END OF THE OCEAN: EVERYTHING ENDS & BEGINS AT THE BEACH
lol even his most short and basic aphorisms are wrong. The beach is land.

But can you see the act of seeing?

yes?

don't really want to start a debate when you are phone-posting (out of empathy, there is nothing more fucking annoying), but I believe icycalm does hold that "two selves" system, just with a few caveats:

1. The body powers the consciousness, not the other way around. So the body contains this consciousness, turning this two selves system into a one self system.
2. consciousness is not qualitative, it is quantitative and in everything to varying degrees.

Basically, he turns the soul from a mystical idea located outside the universe to a concrete one located inside the universe. I'll bet on the latter, but you can do whatever the fuck you want to brother. That other (might I add outdated) schools of thought disagree is argumentum ad populum.

What sees that seeing?

he's not asking you if you can verify that you see something, or see that someone else is capable of sight. he's asking who is the actual observer when "you" the person sees something

>he's asking who is the actual observer when "you" the person sees something
"me", the person.