The 4 hour workweek

People like this book because it shows them how to get what they want with the minimum amount of time invested.

It provides hands-on tools to minimize time spent on work.

Our take:

This book is not fundamental enough for our taste: it is just a business book that doesn’t challenge the foundations of business. It admittedly adjusts to business principles, it doesn’t fight them. This could be fine if it provided a higher perspective that business principles may serve, but this is missing; the “higher perspective” presented are to travel the world or do other stuff you always wanted, now!

Again there is nothing wrong with doing what you always wanted, but it is hardly about learning shortcuts to tango or martial arts. These short cuts are simple business innovations and when we think about them just a little bit, they are nothing more than all familiar platitudes.

Also, one of the main areas that we must be aware of is precisely the uniform dreams propagated by big business, the module-manufactured lifestyle packaged in luxury and entertainment of the worst kind.

Other than that the tools contained in the book are great and useful for our purposes! From our perspective the book’s value lies exclusively in these.

Check it out:  http://astore.amazon.com/prakhclassnav-20/detail/0307465357

Advertisements

Julius Evola: Ride the tiger

ride the tiger.jpgEvola didn’t speak to modern man. What he calls aristocrats of the soul is a man of previous eras living today. Previous epochs even!

The view of the archaic man is what aristocracy has always manifested. From such a vantage point, our current era maybe characterized as a waste land, void of values, of beauty, of taste and of intelligence. This is obvious wherever we turn our attention: in architecture and fine arts, in cheap, mass-manufactured products, in what music has become and last but not least in modern life-style and relationships.

Those who can see can only stay upright “among the ruins” if they assert themselves and lead an authentic existence. This is an inner practice that takes advantage of the few opportunities this era still has to offer and on higher levels even turns negatives into positives. This is what riding the tiger symbolizes, in analogy with Tantric practices and various other paths of the “left hand”.

Who should not read this book? Those who can fully identify with modern views and “values”: positive thinkers, progressive minds,Tony Robbins fans, technocrats and similar.

Click to get it: Ride the Tiger

Just because it’s possible?

Ki-Gompa_SpitiWe treat correct observation in the book as an important factor for acting authentically. It’s an art that only few are skilled at.

Why do you climb mountains? They ask the climber. Because it’s there. he says.

This maybe the answer of a dude in California who climbs with no particular reason at all besides being talented and climbing being cool in the dude culture. This may also be the answer of a spiritual man who experiences the ascend on the mountain as stages of conquering higher and higher levels of consciousness, part of his regular spiritual practice and who doesn’t want to elaborate on all this to someone he considers unworthy.

How do you know the difference?

By observing them.

The keys to a good observation is:

  1. Understanding one’s own vantage point. The higher this is the more accurate the observation. If in our case, the observation is made by a dude he’ll come to the conclusion that the climber is a dude (he must be if he climbs). If the observation is made by a spiritual man, he’ll differentiate between a dude and another spiritual man. The lower the vantage point, the lower the view/horizon. The problem today is that those who stand lower, can’t look up. Why is this a problem? Because this way one can’t discern anything even potentially, let alone being able to tell the “gross from the subtle”.
  2. Appropriate knowledge. This is related to views. The lower the view, the less reliable the knowledge. Knowledge that was produced by the lowest views are completely unreliable. In the hierarchy of views the materialistic view is the lowest. This view has produced scientism, technotacrism, pragmatism, individualism and various other chimeras. It feels qualified to project-manage absolutely everything and delivers just about anything as long as it’s profitable: once the need is there, it never questions its validity. What is appropriate knowledge? Knowledge above the technical domain, knowledge that originates from views above materialism. It is not by accident that traditional sciences stood in the sign of synthesis and  didn’t lead to any kind of specialization.
  3. Style. This may not be so obvious right away. What we mean by a sense of style or, from another aspect, by taste is the ability to see beyond the surface and recognize the deeper meaning of what we see. In other words what the phenomenon symbolizes for us. Modern man has completely lost his taste and more: his taste is turned inside out, just like himself. He actually considers the repulsive desirable: for him sky scrapers embody beauty while he’s yawning right after he took a selfie in front of a cathedral.

Vantage point, appropriate knowledge and a sense of style are all part of IDENTITY without which no observation may be made. And identity is precisely what the individual lacks.

Genetically modified food, chemicals and molecules that would never emerge naturally, industrial design, music business, nutritional science, plastic surgery, creative gender categories, viagra, antidepressant pills and soon, without doubt, space tourism, various forms of trans-humanism, romantic human-robot relationships and similar “ground-breaking causes” have been or will be delivered by individuals just because it’s possible.

dubai towers rotating

source of photo about Tibetan monastery: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Ki-Gompa_Spiti.jpg

On equality

… The battle cries for equality always come from below, from the egoistic and opportunistic quarters.

Equal opportunities don’t make any sense from the point of view of superiority in any domain, and what’s irrational can’t be fair: not from the physical or the talent point of view and definitely not from the point of view of the intellect;

the athlete will not find it fair that he’s not allowed to perform, the scientist will not find it fair that he can’t progress with his research in his own pace, the superior state man (who is only qualified by the intellect and corresponding style) will find the proposition nonsense and sick to switch roles with an opportunistic and corrupt small man: not because of personal disadvantage, since any office with responsibility for the community is above the individual, but because it’s not fair to anybody (more on the question of equality, see In defense of aristocracy from Anthony Ludovici).

Not only is the irrational never fair, it is also always dangerous!