Nilsi

The Western canon is to high-culture what the Paleolithic era is to culture.

Anyways... lets take this back to the initial discussion. Nietzsche ended up transcending this binary framework of dionysus-apollo in his later works in favor of the notion of Dionysus (with a capital 'D') as a symbol encompassing the entirety of the creative process and, by extension, life itself. In Nietzsche's view, this expanded idea of Dionysus represents a fusion of both apollonian and dionysian elements, suggesting that true creativity and life's vitality arise from the interplay and tension between order (apollo) and chaos (dionysus). Thus, in Nietzsche's later thought, Dionysus becomes a more complex and inclusive symbol, representing the dynamic and holistic nature of life and creativity, where these opposing forces are not just in conflict, but are essential and complementary components of existence. He would then create his final pairing in Dionysus and "The Crucified" aka. Christ (I don't think I need to elaborate what he represents) -- the perfect analogy for our little thought experiment (100.000$ vs. compassion). “Have I been understood?―Dionysus against the crucified one...” I'll let Nietzsche conclude: “The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return from destruction.” So, if you want to serve life, the only logically consistent choice is to take the money.

I was making the point that playing the guitar probably lies on the outer end of this spectrum, as far as sophistication (or a lack thereof) goes.

I don't think you can split these pursuits into more left- or right-brained ones. In philosophy it's just more obvious and explicit than in music. Funny enough, Nietzsche actually talks about these different "artistic impulses" quite explicity and likens them to the Greek Gods Dionysus and Apollo, whereby Dionysus roughly represents the raw and unbound version of creativity and Apollo the cultured and refined version of creativity. The juxtaposition of both, he argued, was the highest form of art and hadn't been properly achieved since the Greek Tragedy. In this sense, I would simply call the guitar player in your example a bad player, failing to integrate these principles properly,- the same way I call John Vervaeke a bad (and painfully uninspired) philosopher. I think Nazi Germany is actually an interesting case study of an attempt to pull something like this off,- although it ultimately just created a giant schism between the overly irrational and romantic Hitler and the impressive larger-than-life (neo-classical) art and architecture it produced.

You can find all sorts of examples for mastery (see the playlist above), which nonetheless can not genuinley be considered in the same vein as Ludwig van Beethoven, Alexander the Great, Pablo Picasso, etc. I would say the highest forms of excellence require millenia of preparation from previous generations to truly reach these transcendent heights of sublimity -- which is where a transferral of this vast tradition requires serious apprenticeship. This includes the discipline of psychology, if you ask me. If you're not seriously studying the works of masters like Nietzsche, Freud, Piaget, etc. what are you even doing? You will end up in obscurity, not contributing anything significant to larger society, just like Leo did (who generally has the necessary talent and character traits to achieve actual greatness, unlike someone as bland and unimaginative as John Vervaeke).

Which is why they are destined to obscurity, although I have to admit the Malmsteen guy is pretty amazing. Its just that playing the electric guitar is such a recent thing (and perhaps too limited of a medium) that there simply haven't been high enough standards established. In the world of pianists, this is an entirely different story and you will not find any celebrated pianist who hasn't undergone an extensive apprenticeship and studied the great works and composers of the Western canon. My favorite example of this mentality is French haute cuisine: This is what it looks like to pursue perfection and excellence down to the nitty gritty details (which is what makes all the difference in the end). Homemade tacos may be great, but running a 3-Michelin-Star restaurant is simply a different league.

Being all wired and blue balled won’t improve your chances with women, don’t fool yourself there. You want to be chill and relatable not some jacked up soldier.

Give a sloppy musician the freedom to improvise… Obviously the apprentice is supposed to liberate themselves from their mentor at some point — which is when „inspiration from within“ can be properly translated into excellent work. I’m not suggesting you suggested anything. I was just wondering what motivates you to ask such questions. It seems to me that you’re generally oriented towards something like balance and harmony, which obviously skews your thinking in a particular direction.

What exactly is it that you care about? One could care about excellence and beauty so much, for example, that it would make them a ruthless asshole. The teacher in this scenario obviously cares a lot about excellence.

At some point your spice cabinet will have run its course lol Discovering Phenibut was like taking psychedelics for the first time for me, in terms of ramifications and possibilites. There must be hundreds of substances, available right now, with potentially life-changing effects, that are just waiting to be discovered by you.

Just found a great overly cerebral review of this album.

Whoa, easy there!

Definitely Phenibut.

The question is whether you view human life as something sacred, which has to be protected at all costs. In which case, there are radical implications and questions one has to ask themselves, such as what your obligation is towards children dieing in Gaza, for example. Would you be willing to drop your college education to enact humanitarian aid in Gaza? Or would you take money that you had saved up for your daughter and donate it to UNICEF?

Yes, unless you have a very specific psychological makeup, you will value economic power for its ability to obtain some kind of value. This then means that you don't treat money as an end in itself, but rather as a representation of whatever is valuable to you -- which is why you dont think of 100.000$ as 100.000 green pieces of paper, but as "a college fund for my daughter," "paying off my student debt," "a new Porsche 911," etc. And this is precisely where it gets tricky and more complex than what you make it out to be.

How are you gonna avoid orgasm when you're doing it to get laid lol

If Ashwagandha and Tongkat Ali are "very noticeable" for you, you're in for one hell of a treat with Phenibut

So wheres the resentment?

If you use it responsibly, you will of course get long term benefits from it by way of reference experiences and muscle memory. Any feedback you get while on the substance will reinforce behavior and your self-concept permanently. I cycle it (5 days on, 2 days off) like I would with any other nootropic and I've never had any problems on off-days or when stopping usage for a longer amount of time. The effect is very noticeable though, so of course you will be your best self on the substance.

I’ve met many girls in my life that were very well educated in feminist philosophy and historical inequalities of the sexes (which, according to your theory, should make her resentful towards men), yet they were all sweet and friendly with me (this includes one’s that were already in a long term relationship, so there would have been no utilitarian value to being nice).

This is a bit of a caricature and only applies to his early works. He would eventually arrive at Eros (Love/Creation/Unity) and Thanatos („The Death Drive“) as the most fundamental drives. Interestingly, for a good part of the 20th Century, only „Beyond the Pleasure Principle“ was translated to French, so most of the famous Post-Freudian philosophy is way more concerned with Eros and Thanatos than with sexual desire— which is mostly a cliché in the US.

This is mostly a problem for young men. With the advent of birth control we decoupled sexuality from pregnancy, so now every girl can get a taste of the best dick in town. As they get older, most women want to settle though and pure biological fitness becomes less of an indicator for competence in male sexual partners, so it still tends to work out for most. None of this should even concern you though, as you can always transcend these „predetermined“ options as a man, by just optimizing for competence-signaling (e.g. physical fitness, emotional intelligence, economic/social status, „looksmaxxing,“ dark-triad traits, etc.) — you could get literally any girl (given that she is available), if you did this correctly. The best part is: this (becoming competent) is what any young man is naturally driven to want to do anyways, so what even is the problem? Also, just for perspective: men have it much easier than girls, who are way more reliant on their (mostly predetermined) looks, in regards to mating opportunities.

So you’re practicing chastity to get laid? How is that supposed to work out?

If you acted normal and chill around women they would be just as fun to be around (if not more) than any man. I could just as easily make the argument that all male to male interaction is mostly driven by game theory, utilitarianism and ressentiment — it would be immediately obvious that I’m grossly over-generalizing.