275.
October 24, 2024 (14237)
The surest way to engage in psychopolitics, assuming that one is already closely familiar with great thinkers of one’s mother tongue, is to write a personal history, rooted in the history of psychopolitics in a second language. One the international level, the second language must have enough power to challenge the dominance of the first. Ideally, these two languages have to be long-term rivals like Greek and Latin, for example.
As we know, in 222 BCE, the Spartan king, Cleomenes, was defeated in the Battle of Sellasia by the Macedonian king Antigonus Doson. In 197 BCE, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, a Roman politician and general, defeated Macedonians at the Battle of Cynoscephalae and proclaimed the freedom of Greece. In 171 BCE, the Macedonian king, Perseus, rebelled against Rome, but was crashed at Pydna in 168 BCE. In 148 BCE, Macedonia became a province of Rome. In 147 BCE, the Achaean League, which helped Rome to defeated Macedonians, rebelled against Rome, was crashed by Lucius Mummius in 146 and Greece itself became a province of Rome.
Cicero was born in 106 BCE in Arpinum, which was captured by the Romans in 305 BCE and granted “civitas sine suffragio”. It’s like to be born in the late 2020s in Canada, forty years after Germany became a sort of province of the US. Formally, Germany, of course, is independent from the US. However, in April 2008, when it was necessary to decide an important military issue, has anybody really cared about what Germans or even French said on the issue?
Since 146 BCE, Greece was under control of pro-Roman elites, it preserved its language and played an important role in Seditio Romana. Cicero began to study Greek philosophers and quickly realized that the Greek language at the time was superior to Latin. Many great thinkers who now study German philosophers (Kant, Goethe, Fichte, Heine, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche) are coming to conclusion that German, as far as philosophy is concerned, is superior to English. How many of us, after reading what Nietzsche says about Bacon, Hobbes, Hume and Locke in Beyond Good and Evil (252) are going to study them and take them seriously? “An abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a “philosopher” for more than a century”? How much the contention between English and German great thinkers contributed to the devastating conflicts of the first part of the 20th century? And what did Cicero say about Epicurus, who arguably was more popular in the Greek language than Plato and Aristotle during “the Crisis of the Roman Republic (134 - 44 BCE). Was the crisis primarily about the contention between patricians and plebeians? Just after Romans conquered way more sophisticated Greeks? C’mon! Who’s going to be a new English version of Cicero in 2070s?
October 24, 2024 (14237)
The surest way to engage in psychopolitics, assuming that one is already closely familiar with great thinkers of one’s mother tongue, is to write a personal history, rooted in the history of psychopolitics in a second language. One the international level, the second language must have enough power to challenge the dominance of the first. Ideally, these two languages have to be long-term rivals like Greek and Latin, for example.
As we know, in 222 BCE, the Spartan king, Cleomenes, was defeated in the Battle of Sellasia by the Macedonian king Antigonus Doson. In 197 BCE, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, a Roman politician and general, defeated Macedonians at the Battle of Cynoscephalae and proclaimed the freedom of Greece. In 171 BCE, the Macedonian king, Perseus, rebelled against Rome, but was crashed at Pydna in 168 BCE. In 148 BCE, Macedonia became a province of Rome. In 147 BCE, the Achaean League, which helped Rome to defeated Macedonians, rebelled against Rome, was crashed by Lucius Mummius in 146 and Greece itself became a province of Rome.
Cicero was born in 106 BCE in Arpinum, which was captured by the Romans in 305 BCE and granted “civitas sine suffragio”. It’s like to be born in the late 2020s in Canada, forty years after Germany became a sort of province of the US. Formally, Germany, of course, is independent from the US. However, in April 2008, when it was necessary to decide an important military issue, has anybody really cared about what Germans or even French said on the issue?
Since 146 BCE, Greece was under control of pro-Roman elites, it preserved its language and played an important role in Seditio Romana. Cicero began to study Greek philosophers and quickly realized that the Greek language at the time was superior to Latin. Many great thinkers who now study German philosophers (Kant, Goethe, Fichte, Heine, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche) are coming to conclusion that German, as far as philosophy is concerned, is superior to English. How many of us, after reading what Nietzsche says about Bacon, Hobbes, Hume and Locke in Beyond Good and Evil (252) are going to study them and take them seriously? “An abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a “philosopher” for more than a century”? How much the contention between English and German great thinkers contributed to the devastating conflicts of the first part of the 20th century? And what did Cicero say about Epicurus, who arguably was more popular in the Greek language than Plato and Aristotle during “the Crisis of the Roman Republic (134 - 44 BCE). Was the crisis primarily about the contention between patricians and plebeians? Just after Romans conquered way more sophisticated Greeks? C’mon! Who’s going to be a new English version of Cicero in 2070s?
276.
October 25, 2024 (14238)
“To what destiny of mine, O conscript fathers, shall I say it is owing, that none for the last 20 years has been an enemy to the republic without at the same time declaring war against me?”
Although it’s a rhetorical question, which Cicero uses to pretend that he is an innocent victim of Antony’s aggression rather than the greatest Latin thinker and master of the Roman Republic, we might assume that he really wants to know the answer, and we’re going to give him that answer, pretending that we’re not wandering psychopols of the 21st century, trahimur et dicimur ad cognitionis et scienciae cupiditatem, but the so-called “conscript fathers” to whom he addresses the message.
“You are the greatest Latin thinker, Cicero, don’t you see it? Everyone who dares to disagree with you on the matters of how the Roman Republic should function is at risk becoming a target of your thermonuclear linguistic attacks. Whenever you say, “Omnes autem velle debent!” we must either bow our heads and kneel before your wisdom or look like fools in the Latin consciousness of which you’ve become an undisputable master.”
Just put it between the first sentence of Cicero’s pamphlet against Antony and the rest of the paragraph. Then how is it going to sound?
“Nor is there any necessity for naming any particular person; you yourself recollect instances in proof of my statement. They have all hitherto suffered severer punishments than I could have wished for them; but I marvel that you, O Antonius, do not fear the end of those men whose conduct you are imitating.”
I wonder if Shakespeare was familiar with Cicero’s Philippics. The fight between Cicero and Antony promises better, more fruitful ground for a tragedy than the relationship between the latter and Cleopatra. Anyway, let’s use Shakespeare’s Antony to respond to Cicero’s threat, and with that close today’s meditation.
“The miserable change now at my end
Lament nor sorrow at, but please your thoughts
In feeding them with those my former fortunes
Wherein I lived the greatest prince o’ th’ world,
The noblest, and do now not basely die,
Not cowardly put off my helmet to
My countryman—a Roman by a Roman
Valiantly vanquished. Now my spirit is going…”
276.
October 25, 2024 (14238)
“To what destiny of mine, O conscript fathers, shall I say it is owing, that none for the last 20 years has been an enemy to the republic without at the same time declaring war against me?”
Although it’s a rhetorical question, which Cicero uses to pretend that he is an innocent victim of Antony’s aggression rather than the greatest Latin thinker and master of the Roman Republic, we might assume that he really wants to know the answer, and we’re going to give him that answer, pretending that we’re not wandering psychopols of the 21st century, trahimur et dicimur ad cognitionis et scienciae cupiditatem, but the so-called “conscript fathers” to whom he addresses the message.
“You are the greatest Latin thinker, Cicero, don’t you see it? Everyone who dares to disagree with you on the matters of how the Roman Republic should function is at risk becoming a target of your thermonuclear linguistic attacks. Whenever you say, “Omnes autem velle debent!” we must either bow our heads and kneel before your wisdom or look like fools in the Latin consciousness of which you’ve become an undisputable master.”
Just put it between the first sentence of Cicero’s pamphlet against Antony and the rest of the paragraph. Then how is it going to sound?
“Nor is there any necessity for naming any particular person; you yourself recollect instances in proof of my statement. They have all hitherto suffered severer punishments than I could have wished for them; but I marvel that you, O Antonius, do not fear the end of those men whose conduct you are imitating.”
I wonder if Shakespeare was familiar with Cicero’s Philippics. The fight between Cicero and Antony promises better, more fruitful ground for a tragedy than the relationship between the latter and Cleopatra. Anyway, let’s use Shakespeare’s Antony to respond to Cicero’s threat, and with that close today’s meditation.
“The miserable change now at my end
Lament nor sorrow at, but please your thoughts
In feeding them with those my former fortunes
Wherein I lived the greatest prince o’ th’ world,
The noblest, and do now not basely die,
Not cowardly put off my helmet to
My countryman—a Roman by a Roman
Valiantly vanquished. Now my spirit is going…”
276.
October 25, 2024 (14238)
“To what destiny of mine, O conscript fathers, shall I say it is owing, that none for the last 20 years has been an enemy to the republic without at the same time declaring war against me?”
Although it’s a rhetorical question, which Cicero uses to pretend that he is an innocent victim of Antony’s aggression rather than the greatest Latin thinker and master of the Roman Republic, we might assume that he really wants to know the answer, and we’re going to give him that answer, pretending that we’re not wandering psychopols of the 21st century, trahimur et dicimur ad cognitionis et scienciae cupiditatem, but the so-called “conscript fathers” to whom he addresses the message.
“You are the greatest Latin thinker, Cicero, don’t you see it? Everyone who dares to disagree with you on the matters of how the Roman Republic should function is at risk becoming a target of your thermonuclear linguistic attacks. Whenever you say, “Omnes autem velle debent!” we must either bow our heads and kneel before your wisdom or look like fools in the Latin consciousness of which you’ve become an undisputable master.”
Just put it between the first sentence of Cicero’s pamphlet against Antony and the rest of the paragraph. Then how is it going to sound?
“Nor is there any necessity for naming any particular person; you yourself recollect instances in proof of my statement. They have all hitherto suffered severer punishments than I could have wished for them; but I marvel that you, O Antonius, do not fear the end of those men whose conduct you are imitating.”
I wonder if Shakespeare was familiar with Cicero’s Philippics. The fight between Cicero and Antony promises better, more fruitful ground for a tragedy than the relationship between the latter and Cleopatra. Anyway, let’s use Shakespeare’s Antony to respond to Cicero’s threat, and with that close today’s meditation.
“The miserable change now at my end
Lament nor sorrow at, but please your thoughts
In feeding them with those my former fortunes
Wherein I lived the greatest prince o’ th’ world,
The noblest, and do now not basely die,
Not cowardly put off my helmet to
My countryman—a Roman by a Roman
Valiantly vanquished. Now my spirit is going…”
“To what destiny of mine, O conscript fathers, shall I say it is owing, that none for the last 20 years has been an enemy to the republic without at the same time declaring war against me?”
Although it’s a rhetorical question, which Cicero uses to pretend that he is an innocent victim of Antony’s aggression rather than the greatest Latin thinker and master of the Roman Republic, we might assume that he really wants to know the answer, and we’re going to give him that answer, pretending that we’re not wandering psychopols of the 21st century, trahimur et dicimur ad cognitionis et scienciae cupiditatem, but the so-called “conscript fathers” to whom he addresses the message.
“You are the greatest Latin thinker, Cicero, don’t you see it? Everyone who dares to disagree with you on the matters of how the Roman Republic should function is at risk becoming a target of your thermonuclear linguistic attacks. Whenever you say, “Omnes autem velle debent!” we must either bow our heads and kneel before your wisdom or look like fools in the Latin consciousness of which you’ve become an undisputable master.”
Just put it between the first sentence of Cicero’s pamphlet against Antony and the rest of the paragraph. Then how is it going to sound?
“Nor is there any necessity for naming any particular person; you yourself recollect instances in proof of my statement. They have all hitherto suffered severer punishments than I could have wished for them; but I marvel that you, O Antonius, do not fear the end of those men whose conduct you are imitating.”
I wonder if Shakespeare was familiar with Cicero’s Philippics. The fight between Cicero and Antony promises better, more fruitful ground for a tragedy than the relationship between the latter and Cleopatra. Anyway, let’s use Shakespeare’s Antony to respond to Cicero’s threat, and with that close today’s meditation.
“The miserable change now at my end
Lament nor sorrow at, but please your thoughts
In feeding them with those my former fortunes
Wherein I lived the greatest prince o’ th’ world,
The noblest, and do now not basely die,
Not cowardly put off my helmet to
My countryman—a Roman by a Roman
Valiantly vanquished. Now my spirit is going…”
277.
October 27, 2024 (14240)
Suppose I am Cicero. Suppose I have been looking for the greatest thinker for decades. Suppose I see that many of those who are praised by my contemporaries look like fools compared to those of previous centuries I’ve been stalking. Suppose that when I try to point this out, nobody gives a shit, and everybody continues to regurgitate the talking points of these fools. Suppose I model myself on those great thinkers of the past, translate their discourse into a contemporary version of the most popular language in psychopolitics and gain so much linguistic power that nobody can beat me in argument. Am I going to waste time bullying the most popular boastful fools of the day? Am I going to attack those who, in my opinion, gained too much credit undeservedly? Am I going to pretend that none of them is a “voluntary enemy” to me and that all of them are attacked by me “for the sake of the republic”?
Suppose we play a videogame where Cicero is one of the characters. All characters of the game are consciously engaged in “bellum omnium contra omnes”. All of them intend to become the number one thinker; all of them intend to preserve themselves in the game. Now, think about how many copies of himself Cicero made in the Latin consciousness. How many copies of yourself are you going to make in English? It’s no longer about biology. Since the invention of writing, linguistic identity trumps biological one. It doesn’t matter how many genes we are going to pass on to a new generation. What counts is how many great thinkers are going to lay siege to our metaphysical castle and how many of them are going to come to our rescue.
For 15 hundred years, Cicero was regarded as the greatest Latin thinker with whom the subsequent Latin thinkers usually formed an alliance. Even Greeks, who were successfully subverting the Latin consciousness, bringing up a downfall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th century, viewed Cicero with reverence. It was Machiavelli, who made the first breakthrough, crashing the walls of Cicero’s castle and smashing it as an empty vessel. Since then, almost nobody was able to beat Machiavelli by Cicero one on one. But psychopolitics is a multiplayer game isn’t it?
October 27, 2024 (14240)
Suppose I am Cicero. Suppose I have been looking for the greatest thinker for decades. Suppose I see that many of those who are praised by my contemporaries look like fools compared to those of previous centuries I’ve been stalking. Suppose that when I try to point this out, nobody gives a shit, and everybody continues to regurgitate the talking points of these fools. Suppose I model myself on those great thinkers of the past, translate their discourse into a contemporary version of the most popular language in psychopolitics and gain so much linguistic power that nobody can beat me in argument. Am I going to waste time bullying the most popular boastful fools of the day? Am I going to attack those who, in my opinion, gained too much credit undeservedly? Am I going to pretend that none of them is a “voluntary enemy” to me and that all of them are attacked by me “for the sake of the republic”?
Suppose we play a videogame where Cicero is one of the characters. All characters of the game are consciously engaged in “bellum omnium contra omnes”. All of them intend to become the number one thinker; all of them intend to preserve themselves in the game. Now, think about how many copies of himself Cicero made in the Latin consciousness. How many copies of yourself are you going to make in English? It’s no longer about biology. Since the invention of writing, linguistic identity trumps biological one. It doesn’t matter how many genes we are going to pass on to a new generation. What counts is how many great thinkers are going to lay siege to our metaphysical castle and how many of them are going to come to our rescue.
For 15 hundred years, Cicero was regarded as the greatest Latin thinker with whom the subsequent Latin thinkers usually formed an alliance. Even Greeks, who were successfully subverting the Latin consciousness, bringing up a downfall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th century, viewed Cicero with reverence. It was Machiavelli, who made the first breakthrough, crashing the walls of Cicero’s castle and smashing it as an empty vessel. Since then, almost nobody was able to beat Machiavelli by Cicero one on one. But psychopolitics is a multiplayer game isn’t it?
278.
October 28, 2024 (14241)
A metaphysical castle is the metaphor I use to refer to the sum total of whatever somebody created out of language. Great thinkers travel back and forth throughout the history of psychopolitics, observe the most famous castles – sometimes, laying siege to them and getting inside; sometimes, copying what they see from a distance – and attempt to build one or two for themselves.
My current psychopolitical research illustrates what “laying siege” means. The previous month, I laid siege to Machiavelli’s metaphysical castle. After capturing it, I found a tower there. Inside the tower, a princess was sitting on a pea and suffering. I thought I discovered a great, beautiful treasure, but when I brought her to my own castle, she turned into an old, pitiful man. This old man said his name was Cicero (a Latin word for “pea”). He told me that once he too built a marvelous metaphysical castle and lived there happily until Machiavelli cast a spell on him. He added that the tower where I found him was a part of this castle, which was later captured by Machiavelli and reshaped into the latter’s own image. Cicero begged me to go back there with him and put an end to Machiavelli’s princedom. Wrestling with Machiavelli for a month already cost me a great deal of psychological pain. The old man didn’t seem trustworthy. I entertained the thought that he was actually a young girl whom I saved from Machiavelli’s castle and that she deliberately changed her appearance to persuade me to go back. So I gave her or him my battle toads, a few parrots and an owl (don’t even try to think what it means symbolically) and promised to provide them with intelligence as they embark on their mission. The old man bought it and marched virtuously back to the future with my beasts.
If Machiavelli and Cicero would have had a psychopolitical debate on Lex Fridman’s podcast, who would have won? If all the world’s a stage, who plays Cicero today? Who plays Machiavelli? Are they still bitter rivals? Have they ever been rivals?
October 28, 2024 (14241)
A metaphysical castle is the metaphor I use to refer to the sum total of whatever somebody created out of language. Great thinkers travel back and forth throughout the history of psychopolitics, observe the most famous castles – sometimes, laying siege to them and getting inside; sometimes, copying what they see from a distance – and attempt to build one or two for themselves.
My current psychopolitical research illustrates what “laying siege” means. The previous month, I laid siege to Machiavelli’s metaphysical castle. After capturing it, I found a tower there. Inside the tower, a princess was sitting on a pea and suffering. I thought I discovered a great, beautiful treasure, but when I brought her to my own castle, she turned into an old, pitiful man. This old man said his name was Cicero (a Latin word for “pea”). He told me that once he too built a marvelous metaphysical castle and lived there happily until Machiavelli cast a spell on him. He added that the tower where I found him was a part of this castle, which was later captured by Machiavelli and reshaped into the latter’s own image. Cicero begged me to go back there with him and put an end to Machiavelli’s princedom. Wrestling with Machiavelli for a month already cost me a great deal of psychological pain. The old man didn’t seem trustworthy. I entertained the thought that he was actually a young girl whom I saved from Machiavelli’s castle and that she deliberately changed her appearance to persuade me to go back. So I gave her or him my battle toads, a few parrots and an owl (don’t even try to think what it means symbolically) and promised to provide them with intelligence as they embark on their mission. The old man bought it and marched virtuously back to the future with my beasts.
If Machiavelli and Cicero would have had a psychopolitical debate on Lex Fridman’s podcast, who would have won? If all the world’s a stage, who plays Cicero today? Who plays Machiavelli? Are they still bitter rivals? Have they ever been rivals?
279.
October 29, 2024 (14242)
One of the crucial points of disagreement between Cicero and Machiavelli would be their interpretation of law. Cicero insists that “if we can’t agree to equalize men’s wealth, and equality of innate ability is impossible, the legal rights at least of those who are citizens of the “re publica” ought to be equal.”
Machiavelli’s response to this would be that the most able and wealthiest are in the position to create and interpret the law, and, therefore, equality is no more than a dream. He is going to point out that Cicero himself broke the law when it was necessary to ensure the survival of “his re publica”, which led to his infamous “silent enim leges inter arma”.
If Cicero, after that, tries to defend his position by appealing to exceptional cases, he must either accept the existence of something above law or admit that the law has irresolvable contradictions.
Imagine a grammar nazi who keeps talking about the correct usage of language, constantly making mistakes in his own speech. Now add that this hypocrite reinterprets grammar rules whenever he is corrected by another grammar nazi disguised as a grammar democrat. Suppose these two got married. This is the Roman Republic, iuris societas civium.
Shouldn’t the Roman proverb that “augurs can’t stop laughing at each other when they meet on the street” be extended to lawyers? Perhaps to anybody who speaks any language without knowing its tricky nature? All languages, and especially that which is the most powerful language in psychopolitics – whether it’s Cicero’s, Machiavelli’s or J. Peterson’s language –
are nothing but a set of arbitrary connections
between different sounds and signs
that reflect the dynamics of power relations
of its subjects, its Is (pronounced as eyes).
Wait until English is going to be put down by an “association of partnership in justice” naturally grown out of combined efforts of bloodthirsty (attention-seeking) languages that inhabit psychopolitics, and see what a new psychopolitical hegemon will do.
The death of Latin was not an accident. There is no need to resurrect it, but while ignoring it, we are doomed to remain arrogant fools, no matter how scientifically and progressively we are going to sound in English.
October 29, 2024 (14242)
One of the crucial points of disagreement between Cicero and Machiavelli would be their interpretation of law. Cicero insists that “if we can’t agree to equalize men’s wealth, and equality of innate ability is impossible, the legal rights at least of those who are citizens of the “re publica” ought to be equal.”
Machiavelli’s response to this would be that the most able and wealthiest are in the position to create and interpret the law, and, therefore, equality is no more than a dream. He is going to point out that Cicero himself broke the law when it was necessary to ensure the survival of “his re publica”, which led to his infamous “silent enim leges inter arma”.
If Cicero, after that, tries to defend his position by appealing to exceptional cases, he must either accept the existence of something above law or admit that the law has irresolvable contradictions.
Imagine a grammar nazi who keeps talking about the correct usage of language, constantly making mistakes in his own speech. Now add that this hypocrite reinterprets grammar rules whenever he is corrected by another grammar nazi disguised as a grammar democrat. Suppose these two got married. This is the Roman Republic, iuris societas civium.
Shouldn’t the Roman proverb that “augurs can’t stop laughing at each other when they meet on the street” be extended to lawyers? Perhaps to anybody who speaks any language without knowing its tricky nature? All languages, and especially that which is the most powerful language in psychopolitics – whether it’s Cicero’s, Machiavelli’s or J. Peterson’s language –
are nothing but a set of arbitrary connections
between different sounds and signs
that reflect the dynamics of power relations
of its subjects, its Is (pronounced as eyes).
Wait until English is going to be put down by an “association of partnership in justice” naturally grown out of combined efforts of bloodthirsty (attention-seeking) languages that inhabit psychopolitics, and see what a new psychopolitical hegemon will do.
The death of Latin was not an accident. There is no need to resurrect it, but while ignoring it, we are doomed to remain arrogant fools, no matter how scientifically and progressively we are going to sound in English.
280.
October 31, 2024 (14244)
Every speech act strengthens one set of intentions and weakens others. When I think in English, I reinforce the intention to improve my English, which steals power from the intention to improve my Russian, Chinese, German, Latin, etc. There is no way for me to become the greatest thinker in all these languages. Even if I pick up just one of them and dedicate the rest of my life to its improvement, studying the most significant historical events that shaped its great thinkers and ideas, the chances to outperform other great thinkers aren’t that high. The immense popularity of psychopolitical clowns like J. Peterson in the English consciousness at the dawn of the internet era gives some hope, but it also makes dubious long-term investments.
Assuming that one is driven by the intention to become the greatest thinker, it’s necessary to make a feasible prediction about the fate of one’s language in psychopolitics for at least the next few hundred years. If English is destined to repeat what happened to Latin, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put all our eggs into its basket, even if we are as versed in it as Cicero was in Latin. After all, who reads Cicero today? For any shrewd observer who has studied the original works of non-English thinkers in their original language, it is more or less evident that since the 1990s, the megalomania of the unipolar moment turned the English language as such into a dangerous version of Don Quixote, who sees monsters everywhere in everyone and everything while imagining itself being a benign knight on a white horse. Isn’t Musk’s Neuralink an upgraded version of the Mambrino’s helmet? Doesn’t AI look like a windmill? Sancho Panza is played by the two-headed ogre, Chomsky-Mearsheimer. Dulcinea is the concept of freedom, a whore that is being фucked by everyone who is capable of resisting nausea while looking at her ugly face or who is just totally blind. And we all know what‘s going to happen to Don Quixote after sanity gets back to him. When he throws off his delusions, the next moment he’s dead. And while desperately preserving his grandiose narrative, he keeps making more and more foolish mistakes, mixing up phenomena and noumena, language and reality.
October 31, 2024 (14244)
Every speech act strengthens one set of intentions and weakens others. When I think in English, I reinforce the intention to improve my English, which steals power from the intention to improve my Russian, Chinese, German, Latin, etc. There is no way for me to become the greatest thinker in all these languages. Even if I pick up just one of them and dedicate the rest of my life to its improvement, studying the most significant historical events that shaped its great thinkers and ideas, the chances to outperform other great thinkers aren’t that high. The immense popularity of psychopolitical clowns like J. Peterson in the English consciousness at the dawn of the internet era gives some hope, but it also makes dubious long-term investments.
Assuming that one is driven by the intention to become the greatest thinker, it’s necessary to make a feasible prediction about the fate of one’s language in psychopolitics for at least the next few hundred years. If English is destined to repeat what happened to Latin, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put all our eggs into its basket, even if we are as versed in it as Cicero was in Latin. After all, who reads Cicero today? For any shrewd observer who has studied the original works of non-English thinkers in their original language, it is more or less evident that since the 1990s, the megalomania of the unipolar moment turned the English language as such into a dangerous version of Don Quixote, who sees monsters everywhere in everyone and everything while imagining itself being a benign knight on a white horse. Isn’t Musk’s Neuralink an upgraded version of the Mambrino’s helmet? Doesn’t AI look like a windmill? Sancho Panza is played by the two-headed ogre, Chomsky-Mearsheimer. Dulcinea is the concept of freedom, a whore that is being фucked by everyone who is capable of resisting nausea while looking at her ugly face or who is just totally blind. And we all know what‘s going to happen to Don Quixote after sanity gets back to him. When he throws off his delusions, the next moment he’s dead. And while desperately preserving his grandiose narrative, he keeps making more and more foolish mistakes, mixing up phenomena and noumena, language and reality.
281.
November 1, 2024 (14245)
Is it justifiable to translate “veri cognitione” as “the knowledge of truth” or “поиск истины”? Cicero says that “veri cognitione” is the first out of his four “locis” in which he divides “honesti naturam”, and that it touches human nature most closely. Let’s suppose (omnes autem velle debent) that he talks to himself about himself. He genuinely tries to make sense out of his experience, connecting what he sees, hears, reads, etc. “Veri cognitione” implies that he wishes to be consistent in the use of language. In the case of the “word to world” direction of fit, he attempts to build his metaphysical castle out of “verified knowledge” (проveriнное знание), and in the case of the “world to word” direction of fit, he is determined to follow reason, that is, to do what he says he’s going to do, keeping his word. Although he maintains that “veri cognitione” means to be attracted and drawn to “cognitionis et scientiae”, emphasizing the thinking process, we must remember that in his own mind, there was an ongoing struggle for power between two languages, and it always remained uncertain in which one of them to excel. Moreover, there was another struggle for power in his mind between a lawyer and a philosopher. The lawyer interpreted “veri cognitione” as an impartial understanding of the arguments on both sides. The philosopher saw in it “the chief end of all men” that was supposed to “make the interest of each individual and of the whole body politic identical” and prevent “the destruction of universal human fellowship.” And since he failed to master Greek beyond the upper-intermediate level, believing that “snatching philosophy” from “declining Greece” was a duty of “all men who had abilities to follow his advice”, it’s fair to say that his “universal human fellowship” was neither universal, nor human, nor fellowship, but rather resembled Voltaire’s Holy Roman Empire.
A thief gets into the temple of Sophia, steals her gray haired children, gives them new names and makes the following declaration: “Let philosophy, then, derive its birth in Latin language from this time, and let us lend it our assistance.” This is “veri cognitione”, which is better construed if we translate it as “wishful thinking”. Then, at least, we can agree with Cicero that it “maxime naturam attingit humanam.”
November 1, 2024 (14245)
Is it justifiable to translate “veri cognitione” as “the knowledge of truth” or “поиск истины”? Cicero says that “veri cognitione” is the first out of his four “locis” in which he divides “honesti naturam”, and that it touches human nature most closely. Let’s suppose (omnes autem velle debent) that he talks to himself about himself. He genuinely tries to make sense out of his experience, connecting what he sees, hears, reads, etc. “Veri cognitione” implies that he wishes to be consistent in the use of language. In the case of the “word to world” direction of fit, he attempts to build his metaphysical castle out of “verified knowledge” (проveriнное знание), and in the case of the “world to word” direction of fit, he is determined to follow reason, that is, to do what he says he’s going to do, keeping his word. Although he maintains that “veri cognitione” means to be attracted and drawn to “cognitionis et scientiae”, emphasizing the thinking process, we must remember that in his own mind, there was an ongoing struggle for power between two languages, and it always remained uncertain in which one of them to excel. Moreover, there was another struggle for power in his mind between a lawyer and a philosopher. The lawyer interpreted “veri cognitione” as an impartial understanding of the arguments on both sides. The philosopher saw in it “the chief end of all men” that was supposed to “make the interest of each individual and of the whole body politic identical” and prevent “the destruction of universal human fellowship.” And since he failed to master Greek beyond the upper-intermediate level, believing that “snatching philosophy” from “declining Greece” was a duty of “all men who had abilities to follow his advice”, it’s fair to say that his “universal human fellowship” was neither universal, nor human, nor fellowship, but rather resembled Voltaire’s Holy Roman Empire.
A thief gets into the temple of Sophia, steals her gray haired children, gives them new names and makes the following declaration: “Let philosophy, then, derive its birth in Latin language from this time, and let us lend it our assistance.” This is “veri cognitione”, which is better construed if we translate it as “wishful thinking”. Then, at least, we can agree with Cicero that it “maxime naturam attingit humanam.”
Точка кипения - Калуга
24 ноября, с 16:00 до 18:00
This time, we continue our discussion of M. Sugre's lectures.
M. Sugre provides a brilliant introduction to some of the most influential books and tries to build a unifying narrative around their authors.
To join us, you have to watch as many Sugre's lectures as you can and be ready to talk about them for a couple of hours.
На этом мероприятии мы продолжим обсуждение лекций М. Сугре.
М. Сугре дает блестящее введение к некоторым из самых влиятельных книг всемирно-исторического масштаба и пытается выстроить последовательный нарратив, объединяющий их авторов.
Для участия в обсуждении необходимо посмотреть как можно больше лекций Сугре и быть готовым говорить о них в течение пары часов.
Регистрация:
https://leader-id.ru/events/529652
24 ноября, с 16:00 до 18:00
This time, we continue our discussion of M. Sugre's lectures.
M. Sugre provides a brilliant introduction to some of the most influential books and tries to build a unifying narrative around their authors.
To join us, you have to watch as many Sugre's lectures as you can and be ready to talk about them for a couple of hours.
На этом мероприятии мы продолжим обсуждение лекций М. Сугре.
М. Сугре дает блестящее введение к некоторым из самых влиятельных книг всемирно-исторического масштаба и пытается выстроить последовательный нарратив, объединяющий их авторов.
Для участия в обсуждении необходимо посмотреть как можно больше лекций Сугре и быть готовым говорить о них в течение пары часов.
Регистрация:
https://leader-id.ru/events/529652
Leader-ID
English Science and Literature Club
Бесплатные мероприятия и коворкинги в вашем городе. Leader-ID помогает работать, учиться и находить единомышленников.
English Science and Literature club🤓✍️📖 pinned «Точка кипения - Калуга 24 ноября, с 16:00 до 18:00 This time, we continue our discussion of M. Sugre's lectures. M. Sugre provides a brilliant introduction to some of the most influential books and tries to build a unifying narrative around their authors.…»
282.
November 3, 2024 (14247)
If psychopolitics is still around in the next 3,000 years – and based on what we already know about the previous 3,000 years, there is no evidence to doubt that – a realistic assessment of its structure is going to be as important as it is today. Which is the most powerful language in the system? How is it related to the second most powerful language? To the third? Who are the most powerful thinkers of these languages? And how are they related to each other? Finally, how powerful is the intention to become the greatest thinker in the one who is doing psychopolitics? And how is it related to other intentions?
All these questions are irrelevant until one – bumping into a great thinker – realizes how fragile and misleading one’s biological instincts might be. Where is Plato’s DNA, and where is his metaphysical castle guarded by Cicero and other great thinkers despite the fact Greek no longer plays a significant role in psychopolitics? Aren’t we still living in the personal histories of Plato and his disciples? If there is no difference between biological and linguistic instincts, and, as Hume says, “all probable reasoning is nothing but a species of sensations,” there is certainly a difference between reasoning in English, Russian or Chinese.
Would Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche – knowing the impact their thinking is going to make on psychopolitics – still have written in German? Whoever believes now that he is an upgraded version of Nietzsche doesn’t probably think about the fate of the German language the same way Nietzsche did. In Nietzsche’s time, it was quite plausible that German was going to be the number one language in psychopolitics for the foreseeable future. Where is this language now? Is it the number four, five, six? Sure, for Germans, it is still number one, but how many great thinkers of today are ready to clad themselves in its armor and use it as a highly tensed bow (or, as we would say today, an atomic cannon) to attack the most powerful thinkers of other languages?
The struggle for power between two or more languages in one’s mind to produce a great thinker must reflect the struggle for power between the most powerful languages on the international level of psychopolitics.
November 3, 2024 (14247)
If psychopolitics is still around in the next 3,000 years – and based on what we already know about the previous 3,000 years, there is no evidence to doubt that – a realistic assessment of its structure is going to be as important as it is today. Which is the most powerful language in the system? How is it related to the second most powerful language? To the third? Who are the most powerful thinkers of these languages? And how are they related to each other? Finally, how powerful is the intention to become the greatest thinker in the one who is doing psychopolitics? And how is it related to other intentions?
All these questions are irrelevant until one – bumping into a great thinker – realizes how fragile and misleading one’s biological instincts might be. Where is Plato’s DNA, and where is his metaphysical castle guarded by Cicero and other great thinkers despite the fact Greek no longer plays a significant role in psychopolitics? Aren’t we still living in the personal histories of Plato and his disciples? If there is no difference between biological and linguistic instincts, and, as Hume says, “all probable reasoning is nothing but a species of sensations,” there is certainly a difference between reasoning in English, Russian or Chinese.
Would Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche – knowing the impact their thinking is going to make on psychopolitics – still have written in German? Whoever believes now that he is an upgraded version of Nietzsche doesn’t probably think about the fate of the German language the same way Nietzsche did. In Nietzsche’s time, it was quite plausible that German was going to be the number one language in psychopolitics for the foreseeable future. Where is this language now? Is it the number four, five, six? Sure, for Germans, it is still number one, but how many great thinkers of today are ready to clad themselves in its armor and use it as a highly tensed bow (or, as we would say today, an atomic cannon) to attack the most powerful thinkers of other languages?
The struggle for power between two or more languages in one’s mind to produce a great thinker must reflect the struggle for power between the most powerful languages on the international level of psychopolitics.
283.
November 4, 2024 (14248)
Is language a tool that we use to “devincire hominum inter homines societatem”? There are plenty of cultural blacksmiths who would be pleased with this metaphor. Some of them say that language is a hummer; they use it to strike their heads with metaphysical nails and call it “thinking”. Others insist that language is like pliers; they pull the nails out of their fellow’s heads and also call it “thinking”. But when a great thinker arrives, leading an army of well-organized words and statements experienced in conquering the greatest metaphysical castles, these blacksmiths abandon their tools and run away to dark forests, where they quickly degenerate into wild beasts unable to speak.
Language has no identity. It’s everything and nothing. It’s a tool, weapon, vehicle, guide, material, food for thought, you name it. Language is a product that we create to fulfill certain needs and strengthen our intentions, but, in turn, it also creates us. If I write a dozen books, convincing myself how wise, courageous, temperate and just I am, somebody who’s going to read these books in a hundred years might throw his foolphone into a trash bin, say goodbye to his respected friends, overcome an idiotic lust for acquiring more and more useless things and begin to practice psychopolitics. In other words, the language I produce to fulfill certain needs and strengthen my intentions is going to change the behavior of other people and force them to do what I’m doing, the same way I was forced to change my behavior after reading books written hundreds and thousands of years ago.
The problem, to which no one offered a plausible solution, is that multiple great thinkers – whose words we use and whose worlds we inhabit – produced, produce and arguably will produce different, mutually incomprehensible languages.
Mind, consciousness, reason, spirit, soul or any other less popular metaphor for a language is plural. Humanity is divided into English, Chinese, Russian, German, etc. “dead souls” none of which is capable of seeing itself in others. All these souls (languages) are huge epistemological bubbles that occasionally blow up as Latin did a few centuries earlier. The more we improve one language, the more it threatens the existence of others. When one language acquires a disproportionate share of power in psychopolitics, the others have no choice but to unite against it or be annihilated.
November 4, 2024 (14248)
Is language a tool that we use to “devincire hominum inter homines societatem”? There are plenty of cultural blacksmiths who would be pleased with this metaphor. Some of them say that language is a hummer; they use it to strike their heads with metaphysical nails and call it “thinking”. Others insist that language is like pliers; they pull the nails out of their fellow’s heads and also call it “thinking”. But when a great thinker arrives, leading an army of well-organized words and statements experienced in conquering the greatest metaphysical castles, these blacksmiths abandon their tools and run away to dark forests, where they quickly degenerate into wild beasts unable to speak.
Language has no identity. It’s everything and nothing. It’s a tool, weapon, vehicle, guide, material, food for thought, you name it. Language is a product that we create to fulfill certain needs and strengthen our intentions, but, in turn, it also creates us. If I write a dozen books, convincing myself how wise, courageous, temperate and just I am, somebody who’s going to read these books in a hundred years might throw his foolphone into a trash bin, say goodbye to his respected friends, overcome an idiotic lust for acquiring more and more useless things and begin to practice psychopolitics. In other words, the language I produce to fulfill certain needs and strengthen my intentions is going to change the behavior of other people and force them to do what I’m doing, the same way I was forced to change my behavior after reading books written hundreds and thousands of years ago.
The problem, to which no one offered a plausible solution, is that multiple great thinkers – whose words we use and whose worlds we inhabit – produced, produce and arguably will produce different, mutually incomprehensible languages.
Mind, consciousness, reason, spirit, soul or any other less popular metaphor for a language is plural. Humanity is divided into English, Chinese, Russian, German, etc. “dead souls” none of which is capable of seeing itself in others. All these souls (languages) are huge epistemological bubbles that occasionally blow up as Latin did a few centuries earlier. The more we improve one language, the more it threatens the existence of others. When one language acquires a disproportionate share of power in psychopolitics, the others have no choice but to unite against it or be annihilated.
284.
November 5, 2024 (14249)
How can one say that “mind”, “consciousness”, “reason”, “spirit”, “soul”, etc. are mere synonyms for the concept of language? In Russian, we have “ум”, “сознание”, “рассудок”, “дух”, “душу”. There is one thing in common to all these concepts, namely, the denial of death. Like the concepts of freedom and infinity, these concepts are defined in terms of what they are not. Freedom is not dependency, not slavery; infinity is not what anybody thinks it is; consciousness is not matter, not something that changes or dies.
Now, make all possible combinations of these words, and you’ll have a formidable army to conquer virtually every language: “free infinite mind”, “independent limitless soul”, “immortal infinite consciousness”, “timeless unbounded infinity”, “free limitless spirit”, “infinite spiritual freedom”, etc., etc. Whoever tries to point out to you that these concepts are empty vessels for any content – as is the concept of language and the language as such – is a lunatic. Don’t take him seriously. Don’t pay attention to what he is doing. After all, Nietzsche said that “жаркий полдень спит на нивах”, and therefore, your superoverunconscious free spirit makes perfect sense. If somebody who has been ceaselessly studying linguistics for a couple of decades, examining the works of the greatest thinkers of all time, calls you a fool, take it as a compliment. This gentleman is too arrogant; he is driven by an evil demon, not Socrates’ demon but a Machiavellian one. He deserves pity, not hatred or contempt. Keep talking about various combinations of ABC and building an army of useful idiots, none of whom agrees on the meaning of these words, yet all united in conscious uncollectiveness to “laus stulticiae”. When your language is going to attract a substantial number of biological puppets and start threatening other languages in psychopolitics whose sphere of influence will shrink due to gravitational waves, make sure to abandon it at the right moment and learn to think in a new language. Be consistent, write a couple of pages every day, read the greatest thinkers – quod rationis est particepts – and you’ll forever escape the prison of spacetime. Who can put reason in the spacetime prison?
November 5, 2024 (14249)
How can one say that “mind”, “consciousness”, “reason”, “spirit”, “soul”, etc. are mere synonyms for the concept of language? In Russian, we have “ум”, “сознание”, “рассудок”, “дух”, “душу”. There is one thing in common to all these concepts, namely, the denial of death. Like the concepts of freedom and infinity, these concepts are defined in terms of what they are not. Freedom is not dependency, not slavery; infinity is not what anybody thinks it is; consciousness is not matter, not something that changes or dies.
Now, make all possible combinations of these words, and you’ll have a formidable army to conquer virtually every language: “free infinite mind”, “independent limitless soul”, “immortal infinite consciousness”, “timeless unbounded infinity”, “free limitless spirit”, “infinite spiritual freedom”, etc., etc. Whoever tries to point out to you that these concepts are empty vessels for any content – as is the concept of language and the language as such – is a lunatic. Don’t take him seriously. Don’t pay attention to what he is doing. After all, Nietzsche said that “жаркий полдень спит на нивах”, and therefore, your superoverunconscious free spirit makes perfect sense. If somebody who has been ceaselessly studying linguistics for a couple of decades, examining the works of the greatest thinkers of all time, calls you a fool, take it as a compliment. This gentleman is too arrogant; he is driven by an evil demon, not Socrates’ demon but a Machiavellian one. He deserves pity, not hatred or contempt. Keep talking about various combinations of ABC and building an army of useful idiots, none of whom agrees on the meaning of these words, yet all united in conscious uncollectiveness to “laus stulticiae”. When your language is going to attract a substantial number of biological puppets and start threatening other languages in psychopolitics whose sphere of influence will shrink due to gravitational waves, make sure to abandon it at the right moment and learn to think in a new language. Be consistent, write a couple of pages every day, read the greatest thinkers – quod rationis est particepts – and you’ll forever escape the prison of spacetime. Who can put reason in the spacetime prison?
285.
November 6, 2024 (14250)
To understand Cicero, it’s important to know the psychopolitical context in which he acted on the international and national levels. On the international level, Rome was expanding for a few centuries, dividing and conquering its neighbors, imitating the Greeks and eventually swallowing them. When Cicero was born in 106 BCE, Greek still maintained its position as the most powerful language in the Mediterranean, but the balance of power was rapidly shifting in Latin’s favor.
On the national level, Rome experienced an increasing polarization prompted by violence since Gracchus’ land reform and his subsequent assassination in 133. Two key figures who in this respect were determining Cicero’s understanding of reality were Marius and Sulla. Marius was born in a village near Arpinum in 157, the same city where Cicero was born later. He became consul in 107 and later held this position every year from 104 to 100, which was unprecedented for the entire previous history of the Roman Republic. After the Social War between Rome and its allies (socii), which lasted from 91 to 88, Marius engaged in a fight with Sulla, one of his former lieutenants. This fight brought about the Civil War. Sulla won. Many Marius’ supporters were killed or expelled from Rome. Among the latter was Julius Caesar. Sulla established a military dictatorship, pacified Rome, resigned and soon peacefully died at his village. When this happened, Cicero was 28. Sulla was fluent in Greek and belonged to the so-called optimates, who were on the side of the Senate in opposition to “populares”. Cicero also associated himself with optimates but, in fact, was a shrewd politician and acted according to the dictate of the circumstances. His celebrated skepticism clearly illustrates this: “Nos autem, ut ceteri alia certa, alia incerta esse dicunt, sic ab his dissentientes alia probabilia, contra alia dicimus.” However, while being consul, he didn’t hesitate to execute his enemies led by Catilina and call himself the savior of the Republic thereafter. When he was offered to join the First Triumvirate – Caesar, Pompey and Crassus – he rejected the offer. After Crassus died, Cicero took Pompey’s side in another Civil War and was defeated by Caesar, who graciously pardoned him. Caesar, following Sulla’s precedent, established a new military dictatorship and encouraged Cicero to align with his policies, but Cicero withdrew to his village and “has written more in this short time since the downfall of the Republic than in a course of many years, while the Republic stood.”
November 6, 2024 (14250)
To understand Cicero, it’s important to know the psychopolitical context in which he acted on the international and national levels. On the international level, Rome was expanding for a few centuries, dividing and conquering its neighbors, imitating the Greeks and eventually swallowing them. When Cicero was born in 106 BCE, Greek still maintained its position as the most powerful language in the Mediterranean, but the balance of power was rapidly shifting in Latin’s favor.
On the national level, Rome experienced an increasing polarization prompted by violence since Gracchus’ land reform and his subsequent assassination in 133. Two key figures who in this respect were determining Cicero’s understanding of reality were Marius and Sulla. Marius was born in a village near Arpinum in 157, the same city where Cicero was born later. He became consul in 107 and later held this position every year from 104 to 100, which was unprecedented for the entire previous history of the Roman Republic. After the Social War between Rome and its allies (socii), which lasted from 91 to 88, Marius engaged in a fight with Sulla, one of his former lieutenants. This fight brought about the Civil War. Sulla won. Many Marius’ supporters were killed or expelled from Rome. Among the latter was Julius Caesar. Sulla established a military dictatorship, pacified Rome, resigned and soon peacefully died at his village. When this happened, Cicero was 28. Sulla was fluent in Greek and belonged to the so-called optimates, who were on the side of the Senate in opposition to “populares”. Cicero also associated himself with optimates but, in fact, was a shrewd politician and acted according to the dictate of the circumstances. His celebrated skepticism clearly illustrates this: “Nos autem, ut ceteri alia certa, alia incerta esse dicunt, sic ab his dissentientes alia probabilia, contra alia dicimus.” However, while being consul, he didn’t hesitate to execute his enemies led by Catilina and call himself the savior of the Republic thereafter. When he was offered to join the First Triumvirate – Caesar, Pompey and Crassus – he rejected the offer. After Crassus died, Cicero took Pompey’s side in another Civil War and was defeated by Caesar, who graciously pardoned him. Caesar, following Sulla’s precedent, established a new military dictatorship and encouraged Cicero to align with his policies, but Cicero withdrew to his village and “has written more in this short time since the downfall of the Republic than in a course of many years, while the Republic stood.”
286.
November 7, 2024 (14251)
Is it possible to find a great thinker who talks exclusively about oneself without trying to interpret the intentions and actions of other great thinkers? It seems that great thinkers believe they can improve whatever has been done by their predecessors. Cicero believes he can improve Plato and Aristotle by translating them into Latin and adding his own voice to their narratives. Machiavelli believes he can improve Cicero’s narrative by raising valid objections and drawing attention from what should be to what is and had been. Schopenhauer believes he can improve Kant’s critique by adding more substance (and will) to antitheses to help them outweigh theses. Nietzsche believes he can improve Kant and Schopenhauer by turning one of them inside out and the other upside down. Lenin believes he is the only one who got Marx right. I, after reading hundreds of their books and writing thousands of pages in a psychopolitical dialog with them, believe that I can blow up each of their metaphysical castles with my army of psychological, sociological, philosophical, logical, mathematical, naturalistic, biological, historical, political, anthropological, etc. concepts, which I’ve been assembling under my command over the last 17 years.
While wrestling with Cicero and exercising my power, I received a few comments from people who thought that I was bullying him unjustly. I tried to engage them in an argument, demonstrating that psychopolitics is not about making lampoons but that it involves a thorough examination of the works of great thinkers directed by the intention to increase the power of one’s language in an attempt to become the greatest thinker.
It’s been two months since I finished my book and got on the internet to talk about it. If the book had been written in English, I would have already had a dozen people willing to read and criticize it. As I move on with my psychopolitical investigations of other great thinkers, this number must grow from a dozen to a hundred, a thousand, 万, etc. How long is it going to take before the first English thinker learns Russian to read the book? A year? A decade? A century? A…
November 7, 2024 (14251)
Is it possible to find a great thinker who talks exclusively about oneself without trying to interpret the intentions and actions of other great thinkers? It seems that great thinkers believe they can improve whatever has been done by their predecessors. Cicero believes he can improve Plato and Aristotle by translating them into Latin and adding his own voice to their narratives. Machiavelli believes he can improve Cicero’s narrative by raising valid objections and drawing attention from what should be to what is and had been. Schopenhauer believes he can improve Kant’s critique by adding more substance (and will) to antitheses to help them outweigh theses. Nietzsche believes he can improve Kant and Schopenhauer by turning one of them inside out and the other upside down. Lenin believes he is the only one who got Marx right. I, after reading hundreds of their books and writing thousands of pages in a psychopolitical dialog with them, believe that I can blow up each of their metaphysical castles with my army of psychological, sociological, philosophical, logical, mathematical, naturalistic, biological, historical, political, anthropological, etc. concepts, which I’ve been assembling under my command over the last 17 years.
While wrestling with Cicero and exercising my power, I received a few comments from people who thought that I was bullying him unjustly. I tried to engage them in an argument, demonstrating that psychopolitics is not about making lampoons but that it involves a thorough examination of the works of great thinkers directed by the intention to increase the power of one’s language in an attempt to become the greatest thinker.
It’s been two months since I finished my book and got on the internet to talk about it. If the book had been written in English, I would have already had a dozen people willing to read and criticize it. As I move on with my psychopolitical investigations of other great thinkers, this number must grow from a dozen to a hundred, a thousand, 万, etc. How long is it going to take before the first English thinker learns Russian to read the book? A year? A decade? A century? A…
287.
November 8, 2024 (14252)
The more comments I get while building my grandiose narrative around the concept of psychopolitics, the clearer it is that for readers who’re fluent only in one language (either English or Russian), it’s difficult – perhaps, impossible – to understand what I’m talking about. I don’t “overestimate” anything. I’m a writer, and I’ve been asking myself again and again over the last 17 years, “What the hell am I doing?”
For eight years, I was writing in Russian, mastering this language to an unprecedented degree in my social circle. By “my social circle”, I don’t mean the people with whom I hang out on weekends. All these years, I was cultivating an ascetic lifestyle, so my social circle included Castaneda, Aristotle, Saltikov-Shedrin (2008); Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Lermontov, Pushkin, Shakespeare, Belinsky, Cervantes, Hegel (2008-2011); Goethe, Plato, Spinoza, Pelevin, Descartes, Marx, Feuerbach, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Horace (2012); Kant, Nietzsche, Gurdjieff, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Voltaire, Diderot, La Rochefoucauld, Petrarch (2013); Freud, Osho, Berne, Camus, Sartre, Rabelais, Erasmus, Dobrolubov, Griboyedov, Chernishevsky, Nekrasov (2014); Confucius, Herzen, Heine, Pisarev, Sextus Empiricus, Plechanov (2015); Lenin, Kuhn, Heraclitus, Sallust, Helvetius, Sombart, Frazer (2016).
These guys were fighting for attention to control my Russian thinking, that is, to dictate what gets and what doesn’t get on the pages of my personal history, which I’ve been consciously working on since 2011 almost on a daily basis.
In 2016, two days before Trump was elected for office, I abandoned Russian and started writing my personal history in English. My command of English at that time was no stronger than what a three-year-old child might boast about. I knew a few thousand words but had little understanding of grammar and grasped no more than 20% while listening to someone like J. Peterson. For the first year (2017), this clown looked wiser to me than all abovementioned thinkers combined. His popularity on youtube rose from 200, 000 to 2 million subs in a matter of months. While doing regular exercises (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrdu5XImpGI&t=87s), my ability to speak English skyrocketed, but at the end of 2019, I still viewed Peterson as a great thinker and spent dozens of hours watching and discussing his courses of lectures like Maps of Meaning and Personality and its Transformation. However, as I read (and listened to) other great thinkers in English while writing on a daily basis and improving my language, I arrived at the conclusion that in the long run, with my background in Russian, I have a chance to outperform not just some Petersons but virtually everyone. So, what the hell am I doing? Why do I write? I’m trying to become the greatest thinker and I suppose that those I compete with have been trying to do the same (often unconsciously).
November 8, 2024 (14252)
The more comments I get while building my grandiose narrative around the concept of psychopolitics, the clearer it is that for readers who’re fluent only in one language (either English or Russian), it’s difficult – perhaps, impossible – to understand what I’m talking about. I don’t “overestimate” anything. I’m a writer, and I’ve been asking myself again and again over the last 17 years, “What the hell am I doing?”
For eight years, I was writing in Russian, mastering this language to an unprecedented degree in my social circle. By “my social circle”, I don’t mean the people with whom I hang out on weekends. All these years, I was cultivating an ascetic lifestyle, so my social circle included Castaneda, Aristotle, Saltikov-Shedrin (2008); Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Lermontov, Pushkin, Shakespeare, Belinsky, Cervantes, Hegel (2008-2011); Goethe, Plato, Spinoza, Pelevin, Descartes, Marx, Feuerbach, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Horace (2012); Kant, Nietzsche, Gurdjieff, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Voltaire, Diderot, La Rochefoucauld, Petrarch (2013); Freud, Osho, Berne, Camus, Sartre, Rabelais, Erasmus, Dobrolubov, Griboyedov, Chernishevsky, Nekrasov (2014); Confucius, Herzen, Heine, Pisarev, Sextus Empiricus, Plechanov (2015); Lenin, Kuhn, Heraclitus, Sallust, Helvetius, Sombart, Frazer (2016).
These guys were fighting for attention to control my Russian thinking, that is, to dictate what gets and what doesn’t get on the pages of my personal history, which I’ve been consciously working on since 2011 almost on a daily basis.
In 2016, two days before Trump was elected for office, I abandoned Russian and started writing my personal history in English. My command of English at that time was no stronger than what a three-year-old child might boast about. I knew a few thousand words but had little understanding of grammar and grasped no more than 20% while listening to someone like J. Peterson. For the first year (2017), this clown looked wiser to me than all abovementioned thinkers combined. His popularity on youtube rose from 200, 000 to 2 million subs in a matter of months. While doing regular exercises (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrdu5XImpGI&t=87s), my ability to speak English skyrocketed, but at the end of 2019, I still viewed Peterson as a great thinker and spent dozens of hours watching and discussing his courses of lectures like Maps of Meaning and Personality and its Transformation. However, as I read (and listened to) other great thinkers in English while writing on a daily basis and improving my language, I arrived at the conclusion that in the long run, with my background in Russian, I have a chance to outperform not just some Petersons but virtually everyone. So, what the hell am I doing? Why do I write? I’m trying to become the greatest thinker and I suppose that those I compete with have been trying to do the same (often unconsciously).
YouTube
Speaking exercise 1
In this video I show my experiecne of learning by thinking
288.
November 10, 2024 (14254)
Today, I’m going to conduct a poll by asking random people on the street who comes to mind when they hear the phrase “the greatest thinker”. My goal is not to determine who actually is the greatest thinker; I just want to make sure that my assumption about three levels of psychopolitics makes sense. Since I’m going to conduct the poll in a Russian-speaking city, many streets of which are named after such thinkers as Lenin, Saltikov-Shedrin, Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Tsiolkovsky, etc., I expect that among three great thinkers everyone names, at least two are going to be Russians. If I could have conducted the poll in the US, I would have gotten different results. However, in both Russia and the US, someone occasionally will drop the name of a Greek, Latin, Chinese, Arabic, French, Spanish, German, etc. thinker.
To understand psychopolitics, it’s necessary to understand how certain thinkers have reached the international level, being translated into the most important languages of psychopolitics. My theory postulates that the greatest thinkers of every language are aware not only of themselves but also of their rivals in other languages and do whatever they can to undermine their influence. The intention to become the greatest thinker is for a language (Russian, Chinese, English) what the instinct of self-preservation is for a person. The system of languages (psychopolitics) is in the state of anarchy. Everybody can make their own languages with specific rules and encourage others to use them by whatever means they think are necessary. Great thinkers who dedicate decades to the development of a particular language and try to preserve the intention to become the greatest thinker intact for centuries, so that after their death, others would be able to pick this intention up and push further their project, are turning in their graves, when their language loses momentum on the international level. This leads to the security dilemma. As one language gains a disproportional share of power on the international level, its greatest thinkers become targets for the greatest thinkers of all other languages.
November 10, 2024 (14254)
Today, I’m going to conduct a poll by asking random people on the street who comes to mind when they hear the phrase “the greatest thinker”. My goal is not to determine who actually is the greatest thinker; I just want to make sure that my assumption about three levels of psychopolitics makes sense. Since I’m going to conduct the poll in a Russian-speaking city, many streets of which are named after such thinkers as Lenin, Saltikov-Shedrin, Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Tsiolkovsky, etc., I expect that among three great thinkers everyone names, at least two are going to be Russians. If I could have conducted the poll in the US, I would have gotten different results. However, in both Russia and the US, someone occasionally will drop the name of a Greek, Latin, Chinese, Arabic, French, Spanish, German, etc. thinker.
To understand psychopolitics, it’s necessary to understand how certain thinkers have reached the international level, being translated into the most important languages of psychopolitics. My theory postulates that the greatest thinkers of every language are aware not only of themselves but also of their rivals in other languages and do whatever they can to undermine their influence. The intention to become the greatest thinker is for a language (Russian, Chinese, English) what the instinct of self-preservation is for a person. The system of languages (psychopolitics) is in the state of anarchy. Everybody can make their own languages with specific rules and encourage others to use them by whatever means they think are necessary. Great thinkers who dedicate decades to the development of a particular language and try to preserve the intention to become the greatest thinker intact for centuries, so that after their death, others would be able to pick this intention up and push further their project, are turning in their graves, when their language loses momentum on the international level. This leads to the security dilemma. As one language gains a disproportional share of power on the international level, its greatest thinkers become targets for the greatest thinkers of all other languages.
289.
November 11, 2024 (14255)
I asked 78 people to name three greatest thinkers. Here is the top ten: Pushkin (mentioned 20 times), Tsiolkovsky (18), Aristotle (13), Lomonosov (12), Tolstoy (10), Einstein (10), Kant (10), Mendeleev (8), Marx (8), Lenin (8). I didn’t specify what exactly I meant by a thinker (мыслитель), but if people were confused and unable to come up with an answer, I helped them by adding such categories as a scientist, poet, writer, philosopher. It took me less than two hours to conduct this poll. Next time, I think, I’m going to print flyers with an invitation to my lectures, handing them out to everyone who’s going to respond to me. Assuming that I’m going to be able to make these lectures throughout the entire year of 2025 and conduct such polls once a month, picking up the most popular thinkers of the city and examining them through psychopolitical lenses, I might expect that my audience is going to grow from a handful to a few dozen people.
I must be clear about what I’m doing to avoid all kinds of ambiguity. I’m a writer (poet, philosopher, scientist). I’ve been working on my language to produce the first book for almost 17 years (2007-2024). Meanwhile, I’ve written and published hundreds of poems, tales, letters and articles and thousands of entries from my diaries on the internet. From 2008, after reading the collected volumes (10) of Saltikov-Shedrin, up until 2016, when I began to think in English, I was obsessed with great thinkers. I read the collective volumes of Dostoevsky (6), Turgenev (6), Pushkin (6), Tolstoy (10), Belinsky (3), Hegel (10), Goethe (9), Schopenhauer (6), Kant (7), Nietzsche (3), Hobbes (2), Herzen (5), Dobrolubov (3), Sextus Empiricus (2), Pisarev (3), book after book in one shot, without being distracted by social media, friends, girls, games, work, etc. It doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced all of that. It means that I prioritized reading (and writing) above everything else, while my train of thought was led by a cohort of great thinkers who were ceaselessly fighting for who’s going to whistle off to warn careless idiots and children dumb enough to play on the railroad.
I think my book deserves to be widely read and discussed by men of knowledge of the highest caliber. I hope these lectures are going to help me sell it.
November 11, 2024 (14255)
I asked 78 people to name three greatest thinkers. Here is the top ten: Pushkin (mentioned 20 times), Tsiolkovsky (18), Aristotle (13), Lomonosov (12), Tolstoy (10), Einstein (10), Kant (10), Mendeleev (8), Marx (8), Lenin (8). I didn’t specify what exactly I meant by a thinker (мыслитель), but if people were confused and unable to come up with an answer, I helped them by adding such categories as a scientist, poet, writer, philosopher. It took me less than two hours to conduct this poll. Next time, I think, I’m going to print flyers with an invitation to my lectures, handing them out to everyone who’s going to respond to me. Assuming that I’m going to be able to make these lectures throughout the entire year of 2025 and conduct such polls once a month, picking up the most popular thinkers of the city and examining them through psychopolitical lenses, I might expect that my audience is going to grow from a handful to a few dozen people.
I must be clear about what I’m doing to avoid all kinds of ambiguity. I’m a writer (poet, philosopher, scientist). I’ve been working on my language to produce the first book for almost 17 years (2007-2024). Meanwhile, I’ve written and published hundreds of poems, tales, letters and articles and thousands of entries from my diaries on the internet. From 2008, after reading the collected volumes (10) of Saltikov-Shedrin, up until 2016, when I began to think in English, I was obsessed with great thinkers. I read the collective volumes of Dostoevsky (6), Turgenev (6), Pushkin (6), Tolstoy (10), Belinsky (3), Hegel (10), Goethe (9), Schopenhauer (6), Kant (7), Nietzsche (3), Hobbes (2), Herzen (5), Dobrolubov (3), Sextus Empiricus (2), Pisarev (3), book after book in one shot, without being distracted by social media, friends, girls, games, work, etc. It doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced all of that. It means that I prioritized reading (and writing) above everything else, while my train of thought was led by a cohort of great thinkers who were ceaselessly fighting for who’s going to whistle off to warn careless idiots and children dumb enough to play on the railroad.
I think my book deserves to be widely read and discussed by men of knowledge of the highest caliber. I hope these lectures are going to help me sell it.