Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Reasoning for Morality

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:14 am

I'm posting this here though i posted it at ILP as I feel i will get a more opposing discussion on the topic here.

I believe there is reason to be moral and that is that morals are behavioral codes that are a support for civilization and ultimately civilization is a life insurer for the individual. in other words it is that through civilization and moral behavior that we insure the prolongation of our lives to a degree and reduce the probability of our own death by working with each other and effectively reducing the threat of humanity against humanity. of course civilization is not perfect because there are those who do not see this and take advantage of the system... never will it be perfect, for true perfection is imperfection...


Last edited by Abstract on Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:47 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:14 am

That however does not mean that all things claimed to be morals are morals or rather that all things claimed to be good moral behavior is good moral behavior...
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:02 am

Moral behavior, as man would call it, requires no civilization...animals display such behavior.
It is social behavior.
Dogs, apes, elephants, dolphins, whales and many large brained species exhibit compassion towards their own kind, sometimes redirected, due to circumstances, towards the alien - as a dog might towards its human owner.

It is based on genetic commonality...something the Liberals abhor.
The simpler the self-consciousness is, the less developed, refined, identity is, all the more it can be diverted or sublimated.
For example, a simple mind can be made to identity with an abstraction, such as Nation, or Mankind, or God, without being able to consciously defend this identification or to explain it rationally.
It feels it.
Ironically, the very ones who dismiss all sexual identities then readily submit to the most general one: species.
From "If you can fertilize it and bear children, then it is your own" you get the "If you can fuck it it is your own".
The productive end vanishes, emptying the very act of its value; turning it into a joke.

Another example:
A simple mind or one manipulated from birth, repressing its natural development of self (ego), can be made to associate self with something as broad and ambiguous as the concept of "humanity", rejecting all finer more precise definitions of self, as more refined, discriminating partitions of the concept Humanity.
Pushed further this same mind might be seduced by a more relieving possibility such as immersing itself in the identity of mammal, or life, or the abstraction might become even more fantastically ambiguous: God...or, even more so emptiness.
In the last phase nihilism reaches its apex.
Man identifies himself with the absence...and so disappears in his own mind, giving himself to the entropy.
The relief is one based on the individual's capacity to endure self-hood and the risks, costs and solitude this entails.
This is why these nihilistic cults always preach a "surrender"...a "tearing down of walls"...the "elimination of discrimination"....the slandering of ego and pride.

What do they value?
Selflessness.....the self less a self: total self-nullification.
To achieve this contradiction they try to sell the notion of selfless acts, or actinos (existence) purified from a motive that gives pelasure to the ego.

Love, maternity, nature is made into a non-existent existence.
All activities are rendered useless...a casual pastimes....a childish game.
Because REAL reality is beyond or beneath or hidden....or somewhere out there, in the coming future.

A weak, stunted (retarded), psychology, will find comfort in belonging to a bigger, protective, concept: the feminine psyche.
A stronger mind will choose to identify using more precise concepts; it will seek to distinguish itself within the chaos or the growing uniformity. It will seek to liberate, separate, itself from the common.

Morals are codes of conduct...institutionalized and then enforced when they veer towards anti-nature, territories.

For example, monogamy is unnatural to man, yet it is necessary if a stable system is to be created by integrating males and making them investors rather than free-radicals.
Training, repression mostly partially effective, brainwashing, manipulation, peer pressure, is used to enforce a strict moral code that contradicts natural inclinations or the original reason why the moral instinct, the social instinct, evolved.

Some things to consider before you proceed.
Social behavior as it evolves is a consequence of a weakness.
An organism compromises its freedom of action, so as to participate in a cooperative, because it is unable to survive on its own or it increases its potential to survive by doing so.

Empathy does not necessarily result in sympathy.

A love directed to all, is a prostitution of self.
It makes love valueless...since all deserve it.
Life feeds on life...ergo those who profess to be moral in regards to ALL life are really placing themselves on the side of the eaten, rather than the one who eats.
This is victim psychology.
Shame enters as a consequence of not being able to not live without killing or destroying other life.
A lifetime of guilt, to be absolved in an after-life.

Pagans, and more traditional peoples, honored their prey, because they saw themselves in it, but they do not refrain from killing and consuming it. They honored it by using every part of it, rather than wasting its parts or killing for sport, as many Modern "Christians" do.

They had a hierarchy of identity. They placed themselves and their own at the top.
They did not place the other, the ambiguous otherness, there, then feeling guilty for being killers or humans.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:27 am

Satyr wrote:
Moral behavior, as man would call it, requires no civilization...animals display such behavior.
It is social behavior.
Dogs, apes, elephants, dolphins, whales and many large brained species exhibit compassion towards their own kind, sometimes redirected, due to circumstances, towards the alien - as a dog might towards its human owner.
the flaw in this logic is thinking there is a beginning and end of what is civilization dogs and animals in exhibiting these moral behaviors and social behaviors are exhibiting a small degree of civilized behavior.

Quote :


What do they value?
Selflessness.....the self less a self: total self-nullification.
To achieve this contradiction they try to sell the notion of selfless acts, or actinos (existence) purified from a motive that gives pelasure to the ego.
Moral behavior is in ones own self interst and thus yes indeed it is selfish, but there is no problem with that for selfishness is natural and beneficial to others as well as the individual in that it leads to working together for the sake of the self.

Quote :



Some things to consider before you proceed.
Social behavior as it evolves is a consequence of a weakness.
An organism compromises its freedom of action, so as to participate in a cooperative, because it is unable to survive on its own or it increases its potential to survive by doing so.
indeed. Yet overcoming a weakness is a strength.

Quote :


Empathy does not necessarily result in sympathy.

A love directed to all, is a prostitution of self.
It makes love valueless...since all deserve it.
That the love of a person becomes universally evident may reduce but not eliminate the value. Regardless, in so devaluing one thing value goes elsewhere, energy is preserved and not destroyed, so in loving all perhaps you bring value to other concepts such as liking a person or not.

Quote :

Life feeds on life...ergo those who profess to be moral in regards to ALL life are really placing themselves on the side of the eaten, rather than the one who eats.
This is victim psychology.
Shame enters as a consequence of not being able to not live without killing or destroying other life.
A lifetime of guilt, to be absolved in an after-life.
Bad in itself is a good thing, competition is a cause of strength. Thus to some degree to destroy is moral.

Quote :


Pagans, and more traditional peoples, honored their prey, because they saw themselves in it, but they do not refrain from killing and consuming it. They honored it by using every part of it, rather than wasting its parts or killing for sport, as many Modern "Christians" do.

They had a hierarchy of identity. They placed themselves and their own at the top.
They did not place the other, the ambiguous otherness, there, then feeling guilty for being killers or humans.
It is not about guilt but about uselessness. Why waste energy destroying what you need not destroy?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:30 am

I see you have been keeping an Eye on me.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:50 pm

Abstract wrote:
the flaw in this logic is thinking there is a beginning and end of what is civilization dogs and animals in exhibiting these moral behaviors and social behaviors are exhibiting a small degree of civilized behavior.
Really?
Then be so kind as to tell me where you find my error, or where I proposed a beginning and an end.
This should provide some comedic value, because so far everything you've said smells of need.

If you want to make me an easy target in your mind, then ask me to be what you need me to be.
What opinion would make me easy to expose?
I'll play along.

Abstract wrote:
Moral behavior is in ones own self interst and thus yes indeed it is selfish, but there is no problem with that for selfishness is natural and beneficial to others as well as the individual in that it leads to working together for the sake of the self.
We are making progress.
Therefore, if I am nice to you, because it suits my interests in the here and now, or if I turn on you, later, because my interests have changed...this would not make you cry, now would it?
Would it?

But tell me...is moral behavior, as you think of it, innate?
Are those who require a God, or an objective Moral authority, really nice people, or merely people who are forced to be so, and being such fear that without God or some external authority they too might be nasty...because inside they know they are not moral at all?
What if what "moral numb-nuts" really want is a guarantee that the stronger ones will not rape and kill them if they get a chance; that their stupidity will not be exploited by those whoa re more intelligent and do not buy into the crap about objective morality and the God hypothesis.

Are you one of them?

Abstract wrote:
indeed. Yet overcoming a weakness is a strength.
This is not an overcoming...this is a compensation.
The organism being unable to overcome its own failings sacrifices its freedom, so as to gain the advantage of synergy.
In the process it makes itself even more weak, in relation to the other, but is compensated by this communal force of quantity over quality.

Why are you so insulted by the idea that social behavior is based on an inadequacy?

Is it because it implies that the more social you are, the more weak you are?

Abstract wrote:
That the love of a person becomes universally evident may reduce but not eliminate the value. Regardless, in so devaluing one thing value goes elsewhere, energy is preserved and not destroyed, so in loving all perhaps you bring value to other concepts such as liking a person or not.
Shocked
Huh?
"Universally evident"?
What, the fuck, are you on?
You mean if the majority of morons share in your pretense or are convinced of their purity, that reality is adjusted by this democratic vote?

Listen, if your love is so worthless that all deserve it, then why are you upset when nobody gives a shit about you and they choose another whore's love?

How is love preserved if it is an emotion, in the brain, making a particular behavior more probable?
Is love a thing?

If I smash your skull in and cut you to pieces...and eat half of you, burning the rest, the energy is preserved...but where are you?
An emotion is not preserved...it is a product of a brain. The pulses making it possible, do not preserve their patterns, nor do they flow within the same evolved neuron highways.
Matter/Energy has no emotion. It is not alive.

Abstract wrote:
Bad in itself is a good thing, competition is a cause of strength. Thus to some degree to destroy is moral.
Then why do people like you need the terms moral/immoral?

Abstract wrote:
It is not about guilt but about uselessness. Why waste energy destroying what you need not destroy?
What?
Usefulness is a personal matter. If you are "useless" to another then why do you desperately want to be so?
Are you a whore?

Who, the fuck, said anything about destroying for no reason at all?
Are you obtuse?
With whom are you having this exchange?
Not with me, because you appear confused or totally ignorant about my positions.

Such a desire to destroy...such vindictiveness.
What is your reason?

------------------
Abstract wrote:
I see you have been keeping an Eye on me.
Huh?

You are not that interesting....this is all from the few posts you've made here...and memory.

You actually think i give a shit enough to waste my time keeping track of every imbecile who changes monikers and comes here wanting to "put me in my place"?

I recall an Albanian with a tattoo down his side; a skinny-assed wimp trying to find female companionship.
Are you he?
Who cares?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:19 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
the flaw in this logic is thinking there is a beginning and end of what is civilization dogs and animals in exhibiting these moral behaviors and social behaviors are exhibiting a small degree of civilized behavior.
Really?
Then be so kind as to tell me where you find my error, or where I proposed a beginning and an end.
This should provide some comedic value, because so far everything you've said smells of need.

you accuse me of reading into your words yet this is surely because you are expecting similar behavior to your own in others. if my assumptions are wrong so be it we will get to know each other by deleting the inaccurate ones. Often an accusation upon a person can be a perlocutionary act such as to arrive at knowledge other then would be typically evident by the expected response.

Anyways... I said where your flaw in thinking was there but apparently you didn't see it. This may be my own fault in not iterating well. what i mean is that it is flawed to think that what is civilized starts with a given behavior beyond simply being characterized by having some social behavior in general, perhaps. Thus it has no "beginning". But really i was wrong to say that it does if it does indeed have its beginning in social behavior though it is arguable i think that perhaps being a loner can be a civilized nature as well in which case there would be no "beginning" to what characterizes something as civilized... To be a pack animal is a level of civilization in other words.

Satyr wrote:
If you want to make me an easy target in your mind, then ask me to be what you need me to be.
What opinion would make me easy to expose?
I'll play along.
scratch


Satyr wrote:

But tell me...is moral behavior, as you think of it, innate?
Are those who require a God, or an objective Moral authority, really nice people, or merely people who are forced to be so, and being such fear that without God or some external authority they too might be nasty...because inside they know they are not moral at all?
What if what "moral numb-nuts" really want is a guarantee that the stronger ones will not rape and kill them if they get a chance; that their stupidity will not be exploited by those whoa re more intelligent and do not buy into the crap about objective morality and the God hypothesis.
It is probably not very innate if at all, as such behavior has to its larger degree only been around for a while. though it is possible that with continued such behavior over a long enough period of history it may become innate...IDK

Satyr wrote:

Are you one of them?
I believe that whether God exists or not is irrelevent to taking one's best path... I do not claim to know that God exists, but i would not be surprised if there exists a thing that is a close fit to the idea.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
indeed. Yet overcoming a weakness is a strength.
This is not an overcoming...this is a compensation.
The organism being unable to overcome its own failings sacrifices its freedom, so as to gain the advantage of synergy.
In the process it makes itself even more weak, in relation to the other, but is compensated by this communal force of quantity over quality.
Hmmm... perhaps we do weaken ourselves in relying on others, yet as a whole does not that whole of humanity rely on itself... so as one there can be growth in strength...

Satyr wrote:

Why are you so insulted by the idea that social behavior is based on an inadequacy?
here is one of the places you are doing, as i said, exactly what you accuse me of...


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
That the love of a person becomes universally evident may reduce but not eliminate the value. Regardless, in so devaluing one thing value goes elsewhere, energy is preserved and not destroyed, so in loving all perhaps you bring value to other concepts such as liking a person or not.
Shocked
Huh?
"Universally evident"?
What, the fuck, are you on?
You mean if the majority of morons share in your pretense or are convinced of their purity, that reality is adjusted by this democratic vote?

Listen, if your love is so worthless that all deserve it, then why are you upset when nobody gives a shit about you and they choose another whore's love?

How is love preserved if it is an emotion, in the brain, making a particular behavior more probable?
Is love a thing?

If I smash your skull in and cut you to pieces...and eat half of you, burning the rest, the energy is preserved...but where are you?
An emotion is not preserved...it is a product of a brain. The pulses making it possible, do not preserve their patterns, nor do they flow within the same evolved neuron highways.
Matter/Energy has no emotion. It is not alive.
what i meant is that if love becomes something you have for all it may reduce by not eliminate the value of that love. Though i am unsure thus i say "regardless" in devaluing love the value (not the emotion) is brought to something else, in other words if one emotion is devalued another is becoming more valued.

Your ability to misunderstand me is quite profound though i imagine it is because you assume me ignorant and rather take the worst possible meaning my words have rather then the best possible.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Bad in itself is a good thing, competition is a cause of strength. Thus to some degree to destroy is moral.
Then why do people like you need the terms moral/immoral?
I said to some degree. Yet mostly I only need them in so far as i must discuss the topic with those who do need such terms. But then there are indeed levels of value a thing (bad/good) has to an individual as such it is helpful to situationaly label things that are at the time less beneficial as bad or perhaps amoral, if it is a behavior.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
It is not about guilt but about uselessness. Why waste energy destroying what you need not destroy?
What?
Usefulness is a personal matter. If you are "useless" to another then why do you desperately want to be so?
Are you a whore?

Who, the fuck, said anything about destroying for no reason at all?
Are you obtuse?
With whom are you having this exchange?
Not with me, because you appear confused or totally ignorant about my positions.

Such a desire to destroy...such vindictiveness.
What is your reason?
Sorry i misread or misunderstood what you were saying thought you were implying or referencing something else..



Last edited by Abstract on Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:33 pm

Abstract wrote:
I'm posting this here though i posted it at ILP as I feel i will get a more vivid/honest discussion on the topic here.

I believe there is reason to be moral and that is that morals are behavioral codes that are a support for civilization and ultimately civilization is a life insurer for the individual.

That is from the point of view of the herd.

Morals are a "support" for the Powerful to exploit the Civilized herd to their ends and so you have a Culture of the Strong.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:45 pm

Abstract wrote:
You accuse me of reading into your words yet this is surely because you are expecting similar behavior to your own in others.
No, I accuse you of being bad at reading between the lines.

We all project...but not equally well.
We all simplify and generalize, but not equally well.
We all fear, but we are not equally controlled by this fear.
Degrees of divergence, no absolute divergence.

We all have an imprecise, incomplete, theoretical, perspective...but this does not mean that all perspectives are equally precise, or equally rational, or equally clear.

Abstract wrote:
if my assumptions are wrong so be it we will get to know each other by deleting the inaccurate ones.
Why do you assume I want to get to know you?
Are you desperately looking to make yourself noticeable by finding a crack in my opinions?
You are letting your need dictate your understanding.

Abstract wrote:
Often an accusation upon a person can be a perlocutionary act such as to arrive at knowledge other then would be typically evident by the expected response.
Yes...and so you admit that you are just poking around.

Abstract wrote:
Anyways... I said where your flaw in thinking was there but apparently you didn't see it.
No, I saw a declarative statement concerning a "flaw," as I have many, many, many times before from many, many, many others.
Then it was followed by some reference to a "beginning" and "end," which is actually the opposite of my positions.
So, I filed you under "M"...for moron.
Then I played along.

Abstract wrote:
This may be my own fault in not iterating well. what i mean is that it is flawed to think that what is civilized starts with a given behavior beyond simply being characterized by having some social behavior in general, perhaps. Thus it has no "beginning". But really i was wrong to say that it does if it does indeed have its beginning in social behavior though it is arguable i think that perhaps being a loner can be a civilized nature as well in which case there would be no "beginning" to what characterizes something as civilized...To be a pack animal is a level of civilization in other words.
My positions here is that the world has no absolute...it lacks it. Man needs absolutes to both understand, conceptualize and feel safe and certain.

The idea here, as if I haven't repeated it about as million times before, that need is what drives creativity, pro-creativity, activity in short.

I hunt because I feel a void in me, a lack, as hunger.
I create because I need to share; I want to break from my solitude.
i seek knowledge because I am ignorant.

The irony being that because of how the human mind works (consciousness) I can only express this absence by formulating absolutes.
The deficiency of language; a method constructing static concepts to define fluid phenomena.

There is no growth with no weakness.
The organism either perishes or it adapts...it changes, it grows towards a direction that helps in its survival...in an ever-changing environment.

For instance, the evolution of intelligence was the result of a weakness seeking a compensatory trait...a method to survive.
Of course there is no Will...it is all naturally selected: mutations offering a slight advantage, then added upon, and again...and again, until a sophistication is achieved.
It's all trial and error: (inter)activity...the Flux.
No beginning, no end.
Life is no end...it is not holy...it is not sacred.
Social behavior is the result of a weakness in the particular organisms that first found success in communal (inter)action...even if it began as a higher rate of survival against predation when in groups.

If this possibility bothers you on some level, I really do not give a shit.
Go to ILP and share in your loving embraces of Modern Mythologies.
If you think you have a superior theory, a stronger alternative...then present it.
Let's compare notes.
But I need a challenge. if you offer me the usual crap, then there is nothing in it for me...go away declaring victory...who....the fuck....CARES?

There are countless examples of species finding niche behaviors to increase their otherwise low survival rates.

The cheetah, for example, sacrifices muscle, strength, to increase speed.
It's survival strategy is focused, at a cost.
It can use no other method to hunt. Its investment in speed makes it weaker in comparison to other cats.
The lion went the social route.
Get it?
In social survival tactics it is schooling, forming groups...which eventually result in specialized forms serving specialized roles.
Male/Female are such specialized roles.

Abstract wrote:
Sorry i misread or misunderstood what you were saying thought you were implying or referencing something else..
I asked you if you were a whore...a slut.
You seem keen on the idea that your love is public property, which you, theoretically, give out to one and all...so I assume that prostituting yourself and making your friendships and relationships a valueless joke, is what keeps you safe in the knowledge that others are also forced to be whores.
Therefore, if all share their love, indiscriminately, and their friendships and compassion, you must all be a community of sluts, lost in the hedonism of shared masturbation.

Are, YOU, a slut?
Are, YOU, a whore?

From where I stand, if your loyalty and kindness is so free and easy to attain...then it's of no value to me.
If I purchase a whore for $5 and get lost in her faked love for an hour, should I be proud?

She's a whore...she'll sell herself to the next, and then the next...so she's a cheap whore.
Are you a cheap whore?
You sound like one.

Am I playing now?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:46 pm

Lyssa

They can only exploit you if you are not aware that they can... pretty much

While that can be the case for some things labeled as morals it is not the case for what things should be labeled moral in that they are beneficial to all individually as well as all as one.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:59 pm

And you take pride in that?
When the value of your most personal action is the same as another's, annulling yourself...?

Reciprocity is a gross vulgarity.

But its this annulment that allows the Strong to exploit; morality of the good and the just and the virtuous has always been for taming, for 'civilizing'...

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:00 pm

No....they can also exploit you because you are weak.
You can be wide-awake, and still sell yourself.

The only thing awareness gives you is the increased opportunity to escape...to detach, to not be exploited as much.

Now, in this world with no frontiers, where everything is parceled and owned and overlooked and monitored...where are you going to escape into?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:06 pm

Yes.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 938
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:01 pm

Satyr wrote:
No....they can also exploit you because you are weak.
You can be wide-awake, and still sell yourself.

The only thing awareness gives you is the increased opportunity to escape...to detach, to not be exploited as much.

Now, in this world with no frontiers, where everything is parceled and owned and overlooked and monitored...where are you going to escape into?

Obviously ( maybe you meant this rhetorically) you "escape" into the visible, you socialize with all your learned awareness (through whatever means your "awareness" finds its potential (words/music/whatever highly concentrated ordered thing your best at )... this is the way to assert masculinity ( maybe the greatest indicator of masculinity being lasting power ( something so dense with "spirit" it's open to continual interpretation... this could be considered attractiveness... also how continually "refreshing" it is... some music standing the test of time, being more refreshing from the suffering of life than others )

The rich and the poor both share a common love for art... art is preserved by everybody. Even the rich (elites whatever you want to call "them") need the temporary refreshment and redemption from life that art offers. Art exerts control without needing control ( determines emotional states that may be consequential to the behavior of powerful individuals and most definitely consequential to the overall mood of society)

Awareness (clarity) seems to manifest itself in two ways, or two types.. Nietzsche/Buddha...

Both are very sensitive to feminine but with an internal need and urgency to stand independent to some degree... It's a source of strength and inspiration. Feminine energy is the fuel FOR clarity (sublimation)... They both seem to understand this... But for the Buddha, it seems clarity is a means of escape... no art is achieved (no giving back )...unless you consider the Buddha himself and his achieved conscious state, art... or his lessons for escape...

For Nietzsche, there's a need to give back to the feminine... (because without it he would have no strength/inspiration, would be incapable of producing beauty), to elevate it or rather elevate with it ( because a man knows that a women doesn't have the strength or the resources to elevate him... a woman cannot channel feminine energy into the same acute explosiveness that a man can )... clarity is a means to gain more understanding of the feminine( to become more sensitive, to become stronger/concentrated to give back more.... Clarity NOT as a final state after the "temptations" of women have been "passed through"(Buddha)


He gives back in the form of a philosophy that is so concentrated it refreshes in the same way that traditional art does... the synergy of style, and insight in his words produce a state intoxication... it articulates sensitive states (and the observations that come with that ) that assert control without needing to control (like art ).

I started reading Julius Evola lately and am bothered by how dismissive he is of Nietzsche... I really like his style, but I when he says something like this I lose respect:

"One can see from this that Nietzsche's nihilism stops halfway. It sets up a new table of values, including a good and an evil. It presents a new ideal with dogmatic affirmation, whereas in reality this ideal is only one of many that could take shape in "life," and which is not in fact justified in and of itself, without a particular choice and without faith in it. The fact that the fixed point of reference set up beyond nihilism lacks a true foundation so long as one insists on pure immanence is already apparent in the part of Nietzsche's thought that deals with historical criticism and sociology"

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:29 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
You accuse me of reading into your words yet this is surely because you are expecting similar behavior to your own in others.
No, I accuse you of being bad at reading between the lines.

We all project...but not equally well.
We all simplify and generalize, but not equally well.

Abstract wrote:
if my assumptions are wrong so be it we will get to know each other by deleting the inaccurate ones.
Why do you assume I want to get to know you?
why do you asume i assume that? Rolling Eyes Regardless of whether either of us want to know each other by discussion here we will come to know each other.

Quote :

Are you desperately looking to make yourself noticeable by finding a crack in my opinions?
You are letting your need dictate your understanding.
I have no such desire, i simply wish to understand things, to know things, and i find that you have intelligences that will me to such gain.

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
Often an accusation upon a person can be a perlocutionary act such as to arrive at knowledge other then would be typically evident by the expected response.
Yes...and so you admit that you are just poking around.
i wouldn't say poking around but yes i guess...


Quote :

Abstract wrote:
This may be my own fault in not iterating well. what i mean is that it is flawed to think that what is civilized starts with a given behavior beyond simply being characterized by having some social behavior in general, perhaps. Thus it has no "beginning". But really i was wrong to say that it does if it does indeed have its beginning in social behavior though it is arguable i think that perhaps being a loner can be a civilized nature as well in which case there would be no "beginning" to what characterizes something as civilized... To be a pack animal is a level of civilization in other words.
My positions here is that the world has no abolute...it lacks it. Man needs absoltues to both understand, cocneptualize and feel safe and certain.

The idea here, as if I haven't repeated it about as million times before, that need is what drives creativity, pro-creativity, activity in short.

I hunt because I feel a void in me, a lack, as hunger.
I create because I need to share; I want to break from my solitude.

The irony being that because of how the human mind works, consciousness, I can only express this absence by formulating absolutes.
The deficiency of language; a method constructing static concepts to define fluid phenomena.
you seem to have this idea that people think in absolutes but truly all one can do is think that one is certain. There is always some subconscious or lower conscious recognition of possibilities and their reduction of the probability of anything.

Anyways i thought that was your position yet something you said did not seem to logically follow from that belief.

You see a way of being in yourself, a nature, and expect that it is the nature of others. While you may hunt because you feel a void... and surely that void is simply a lack of understanding of a particular thing that leaves you with a meta-narrative that is self depressing... While you may hunt from feeling of void; I feel completed and yet continue to act not for that i feel a need, something that must be had, but rather see that i can have things that are more of what sustains my content and as such for the sake of, indeed, sustenance, I eat. It is not a need because I do not require anything because I do not feel required to live but i do because it maintains a contentment that is pleasing...


Quote :


There is no growth with no weakness.
The organism either perishes or it adapts, it changes, it grows towards a direction that helps in its survival...in an ever-changing environment.
If socialistic behavior is as you seem to indicate a weakness then would you say that it will be evolved out of life at some time? if so could you explain to me what you think the behavior of such living things would be?

Quote :

For instance, the evolution of intelligence was the result of a weakness seeking a compensatory trait.
Social behavior is the result of a weakenss in the aprticular organisms that first found success in communal (inter)action...even if it began as a higher rate of survival against predation when in groups.

If this possibility bothers you on some level, I really do not give a shit.
Who said it bothers me... if it is the truth i will be all the willing to believe it and change my ways no matter what it is. If it is logical. But it seems you have failed to explain but rather only proclaim that social behavior is a weakness... If it insures survival then it is a strength.


Quote :

Abstract wrote:
Sorry i misread or misunderstood what you were saying thought you were implying or referencing something else..
I asked you if you were a whore...a slut.
you seem keen on the idea that your love is public property, which you, theoretically, give out to one and all..so I assume that prostituting yourself and making your friendships and relationships a valueless joke, is what keeps you safe in the knowledge that others are also forced to be whores.
Therefore, if all share their love, indiscriminately, and their friendships and compassion, you must all be a community of sluts, lost in the hedonism of shared masturbation.

Are, YOU, a slut?
Are, YOU, a whore?
I think the word may apply here... yes... whats wrong with being such a whore though? you can apply such a word but that does nothing to disprove the value of my behavior, would you please do that rather then attempt a distraction from your lack of ability to explain or understand, as the case may be? In some cases there is no too much.

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:08 am

Abstract wrote:
why do you asume i assume that? Rolling Eyes Regardless of whether either of us want to know each other by discussion here we will come to know each other.
I do not go off looking for you, whore.
You come looking for me...then you comfort yourself with shit like "So, you've been keeping tabs on me?"

Such desperate need.

Abstract wrote:
I have no such desire, i simply wish to understand things, to know things, and i find that you have intelligences that will me to such gain.
So, you come to understand me...not the world.

Is that a need?
Do you lack understanding?

Abstract wrote:
you seem to have this idea that people think in absolutes but truly all one can do is think that one is certain. There is always some subconscious or lower conscious recognition of possibilities and their reduction of the probability of anything.
1/0 is a binary system based on absolutes...on simplifying/generalizing the fluidity into static form.
"I" is also one.

Abstract wrote:
You see a way of being in yourself, a nature, and expect that it is the nature of others. While you may hunt because you feel a void... and surely that void is simply a lack of understanding of a particular thing that leaves you with a meta-narrative that is self depressing... While you may hunt from feeling of void; I feel completed and yet continue to act not for that i feel a need, something that must be had, but rather see that i can have things that are more of what sustains my content and as such for the sake of, indeed, sustenance, I eat. It is not a need because I do not require anything because I do not feel required to live but i do because it maintains a contentment that is pleasing...
In whatever way you conceptualize the lack in you is fine by me.
Your "contentment" is the product of sheltering. This sheltering is what you defend.

When you fill your belly, the need to feed, falls out of consciousness, as the body has a steady source of nutrients to draw from.
It then moves on to the next pressing need.
Your body never stops feeding or fighting off viruses or breathing...it never stops needing.
Whether you are conscious of it or not, is another matter.

When the need is easily fulfilled, or continuously satisfied this is felt as contentment.
Pleasure is a level of contentment which is inversely proportional to the need that is satisfied; the sensation of the need being alleviated to a degree that it falls out of consciousness.

If maintaining your contentment is how you rationalize acting, then this too is a need: the need to sustain.
But here you are showing how shallow your thinking is. You assume that need must be conscious.
Let me clarify:
Need is the sensation of a lack.
Do you lack or are you perfect?
Are you mortal?
Can you live with no food or water or oxygen?
If not then you NEED.
The level these needs climb to is determined by the ease with which they can be temporarily kept to a low level....and made unconscious. When they become pressing, they rise into consciousness, then becoming so extreme that we have a special term for it: suffering.

That, for example, you can satisfy your body's need for oxygen, because it is abundant in the environment, is what makes you feel content in that regard...but the need is felt when oxygen is in short supply.
Your body never stops needing oxygen.

Are you Russian Tank?

Abstract wrote:
If socialistic behavior is as you seem to indicate a weakness then would you say that it will be evolved out of life at some time? if so could you explain to me what you think the behavior of such living things would be?
Social behavior.

When an ant goes off and find food to bring back to the nest, this is socialism.

The manipulation comes in when the identification of the ant is tweeked to make it a good worker-ant for more than its own ant colony.

Abstract wrote:
But it seems you have failed to explain but rather only proclaim that social behavior is a weakness... If it insures survival then it is a strength.
We have different value systems.
You think like an animal: whatever helps me survive is good.

I place intelligence, self, above survival. I am unwilling to compromise my mind for the sake of living.
Living as a retard is not what I would consider living.
Living in delusion is not my idea of living.

You do...so keep on living in your pseudo-contentment.
If someone told you that if you were lobotomized this would ensure your happiness, would you do it?
Would you call it courage, strength?

Abstract wrote:
I think the word may apply here... yes... whats wrong with being such a whore though?
Given your values, nothing.
You will be a whore then.
A proud one.

Abstract wrote:
you can apply such a word but that does nothing to disprove the value of my behavior, would you please do that rather then attempt a distraction from your lack of ability to explain or understand, as the case may be? In some cases there is no too much.
You would sell yourself to be content...I would not.
My friendship is more precious to me, for me to give it away to everyone because the moral system offers my a sheltering place if I do.
My compassion is more precise.

You, are a whore.
Nothing you offer has value, as it comes cheap and is forced upon you, because you need to maintain your comfort level.
You can easily be manipulated.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:58 am

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
why do you asume i assume that? Rolling Eyes Regardless of whether either of us want to know each other by discussion here we will come to know each other.
I do not go off looking for you, whore.
You come looking for me...then you comfort yourself with shit like "So, you've been keeping tabs on me?"

Such desperate need.
No, i didn't come looking for you... at least i don't think so, though i do find our conversations challenging and fun and something i learn from to a degree. What brought me here is a friend of at ILP captin_crunk seems he would fit in here so i looked to see if this place still existed it did so i figured what the heck ill see whats goin on... or as you said I'll poke around... you really assume way to much about people satyr you think your a sociopath perhaps or socio-understanding but surely you are not considering how incapable you are of actually understanding people. Perhaps that is part of your problem, you think you understand people better then you do and refuse to see otherwise and thus learn new things about the nature of people because you wish to be self-validated in that you are beyond others on a socio level...of course i don't claim to know this like you seem to claim to know things... i am only speculating and waiting for your response to gauge the accuracy of my hypothesis. My "so you have been keeping tabs on me" statement was a suspicion a product of my intense paranoia...

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
I have no such desire, i simply wish to understand things, to know things, and i find that you have intelligences that will me to such gain.
So, you come to understand me...not the world.

Is that a need?
Do you lack understanding?
Everyone lacks some understanding... to assume you don't is perhaps the worst misunderstanding. But i don't see how you get that i come to understand you... you seem to really want it to be the case that people are focused on you... but honestly you are one of the main attractions for me of this sight... i don't not come to solely understand you but rather in learning various things from you whether directly or indirectly i will be learning things about more then just yourself satyr.

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
you seem to have this idea that people think in absolutes but truly all one can do is think that one is certain. There is always some subconscious or lower conscious recognition of possibilities and their reduction of the probability of anything.
1/0 is a binary system based on absolutes...on simplifying/generalizing the fluidity into static form.
"I" is also one.
We may speak in absolute but that does not mean we think in them.

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
You see a way of being in yourself, a nature, and expect that it is the nature of others. While you may hunt because you feel a void... and surely that void is simply a lack of understanding of a particular thing that leaves you with a meta-narrative that is self depressing... While you may hunt from feeling of void; I feel completed and yet continue to act not for that i feel a need, something that must be had, but rather see that i can have things that are more of what sustains my content and as such for the sake of, indeed, sustenance, I eat. It is not a need because I do not require anything because I do not feel required to live but i do because it maintains a contentment that is pleasing...
In whatever way you conceptualize the lack in you is fine by me.
Your "contentment" is the product of sheltering. This sheltering is what you defend.

When you fill your belly, the need to feed, falls out of consciousness, as the body has a steady source of nutrients to draw from.
It then moves on to the next pressing need.
Your body never stops feeding or fighting off viruses or breathing...it never stops needing.
Whether you are conscious of it or not, is another matter.

When the need is easily fulfilled, or continuously satisfied this is felt as contentment.
Pleasure is a level of contentment which is inversely proportional to the need that is satisfied; the sensation of the need being alleviated to a degree that it falls out of consciousness.

If maintaining your contentment is how you rationalize acting, then this too is a need: the need to sustain.
But here you are showing how shallow your thinking is. You assume that need must be conscious.
Let me clarify:
Need is the sensation of a lack.
Do you lack or are you perfect?
Are you mortal?
Can you live with no food or water or oxygen?
If not then you NEED.
The level these needs climb to is determined by the ease with which they can be temporarily kept to a low level....and made unconscious. When they become pressing, they rise into consciousness, then becoming so extreme that we have a special term for it: suffering.

That, for example, you can satisfy your body's need for oxygen, because it is abundant in the environment, is what makes you feel content in that regard...but the need is felt when oxygen is in short supply.
Your body never stops needing oxygen.

Are you Russian Tank?
No i am not Russian Tank I have only ever been abstract on any philosophy forum for quite a long time... I recognize that yes i need for example oxygen to survive... but i do not feel the need to survive and as such it does not follow that i truly require oxygen one only requires the needs for survival if they need to survive. You can claim that my need is subconcious but we can sit here claiming all day that one or the other subconsciously thinks one way or another, it may or may not be the case. It is quite easy to say that it is.

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
If socialistic behavior is as you seem to indicate a weakness then would you say that it will be evolved out of life at some time? if so could you explain to me what you think the behavior of such living things would be?
Social behavior.

When an ant goes off and find food to bring back to the nest, this is socialism.

The manipulation comes in when the identification of the ant is tweeked to make it a good worker-ant for more than its own ant colony.
you didn't answer my question at all, if you are uncapable of conceptualizing a state of life post-socialism then how can you claim such would exist?

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
But it seems you have failed to explain but rather only proclaim that social behavior is a weakness... If it insures survival then it is a strength.
We have different value systems.
You think like an animal: whatever helps me survive is good.

I place intelligence, self, above survival. I am unwilling to compromise my mind for the sake of living.
Living as a retard is not what I would consider living.
Living in delusion is not my idea of living.

You do...so keep on living in your pseudo-contentment.
If someone told you that if you were lobotomized this would ensure your happiness, would you do it?
Would you call it courage, strength?
why place intelligence on the pedestal but that it aids in your survival? You have seen that it is an aid to such, others have seen such, and that is why you have learned that it is a valuable thing. Do you really fail to see that we are indeed animals and are driven undeniably by the will to survive? Again it is easy to use a derogatory form of a word such as animal to try and devalue my argument but all that does is keep yourself ignorant and your ego satisfied. You have failed to exaplain here why it is that to seek to survive should not be above intelligence. You want to disbelieve that my contentment is valid because you do not have it, it would seem.

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
you can apply such a word but that does nothing to disprove the value of my behavior, would you please do that rather then attempt a distraction from your lack of ability to explain or understand, as the case may be? In some cases there is no too much.
You would sell yourself to be content...I would not.
My friendship is more precious to me, for me to give it away to everyone because the moral system offers my a sheltering place if I do.
My compassion is more precise.
You simply wish to validate your social incapacity by calling it more precise you run from any indication of your one wrongness in that you value intelligence, indeed, so much and thus fear that you lack intelligence in some regard. I do not give my friendship to just anyone, but i do value all bricks in the wall for a good wall is missing no bricks.

Quote :

You, are a whore.
Nothing you offer has value, as it comes cheap and is forced upon you, because you need to maintain your comfort level.
You can easily be manipulated.
Often the best manipulator lets others think they are manipulating him.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:03 am

Abstract wrote:
you didn't answer my question at all, if you are uncapable of conceptualizing a state of life post-socialism then how can you claim such would exist?
Socialism?
You mean it has been applied in practice as it is in theory?
Capitalism and Communism as well?
How about Democracy, has it ever been applied in practice as it is supposed to work in theory?
Tell me more about this world you live in.

Who said I cannot envision a post-Modern world?
It begins my eliminating 90% of the genetic filth...you know a general cleanup of all pollution.

Why do you assume I want to change the world?

If I describe my father, and am lucid and brave enough and honest enough to see both the good things and the bad things about him, am I trying to change him?
Do I hate him?

I like you, and the world, just the way it is.
Why would I want to change sheep? Where would my lamb-chops come from?
In analyzing sheep, their social dynamics, behavior, psychology, am I proposing a "correction"? Do I dream of raising them out of sheepness?

Abstract wrote:
why place intelligence on the pedestal but that it aids in your survival?
You are free to value your warm bed and your full belly more, if you wish.
There is an interesting thing about intelligence: it leads to conflict with nature when it is freed from basic necessities.
It detaches.
It's a preliminary stage...like in the grieving process.
Some get stuck in the grief...others in the anger...others deny what they fear.

Abstract wrote:
You have seen that it is an aid to such, others have seen such, and that is why you have learned that it is a valuable thing. Do you really fail to see that we are indeed animals and are driven undeniably by the will to survive?
No shit.
Are you serious?! We are animals?
Ar....are we all the same?
Animals, other than you, that is. You do not need to survive, but only need the processes that help you do so.

I hope one day your aloofness is put to the test.

Abstract wrote:
Again it is easy to use a derogatory form of a word such as animal to try and devalue my argument but all that does is keep yourself ignorant and your ego satisfied.
You made an argument?

Abstract wrote:
You have failed to exaplain here why it is that to seek to survive should not be above intelligence.
For you neither is the case, I'm sure.

I place intelligence above living in squalor or like a worm.
It's just me.
I also have a definition for intelligence.
I choose to live as a conscious man.
You are free to be a whore...or a worm or a sheep.
I choose to be aware...or as aware as I can be.
If given a choice between being a simpleton, and a whore, or living with dignity and in search for understanding, I would choose the latter.

We are what we aim for...what we strive towards.
We all have our ideals...and we all place one need above another.

Thanks for being so god-like that you can be so content but still willing to sacrifice what intelligence you have to remaining so.
No need there.
You are brilliant.

Abstract wrote:
You want to disbelieve that my contentment is valid because you do not have it, it would seem.
Indeed.
A Christian once accused me of hating God.
He was also happy. All he needed was God.

I think you are about as content as your activities expose you to be.
Look how active you are around here.

If not, please provide an example of a creative, procreative, activity not rooted in need or in lack, need being the perception of lack.
If you do not, then you can seek what you want in the others, because I do not want to make the mistake of thinking you came here wanting to prove yourself against me. That would be a msitake based no my egotism and not an honest assessment of your actions.
Given the quality of your posts, thus far - without wanting to claim that I know your quality, your real core, inside, quality - I think my friends here can deal with you easily.

Abstract wrote:
You simply wish to validate your social incapacity by calling it more precise you run from any indication of your one wrongness in that you value intelligence, indeed, so much and thus fear that you lack intelligence in some regard.
Was that an argument?
Tell me more about my "social incapacity."
How does it manifest, as opposed to your social capacity.

Am I without friends?
Am I poor?
Do I not get laid?
Will I never procreate?
Do I not own a car?
Have I not traveled?
Do I not have a big house or many things in it?

Tell me about the social cost of my dysfunction.

Abstract wrote:
I do not give my friendship to just anyone, but i do value all bricks in the wall for a good wall is missing no bricks.
But you admitted that you did...now you are backtracking, my whore.
But why so discriminating, all of a sudden?
Why are you so much more giving to some bricks and not to others?
Do they not all deserve your mortar?

I value all species...but not to the same degree.
Evidence about how not absolute your thinking is:
"All" bricks..."good" wall.

What?

So egalitarian and moral.
So well-adjusted and healthy.
I'm ashamed of myself. Embarrassed to be close to such a creature as you...so perfectly without need.

Do walls stand forever? How good and for how long are walls, anyhow?
Why do they crumble if they are so good?

So much need.
Why do you value your life so, that you are forced to convince yourself that all walls deserve you, whore?
Why this desperate need to preserve your comfort, that you sacrifice your intellect - what little you do have - to this one need?

Am I not a valuable brick in your good wall?
What kind of a whore turns away a paying customer?
Do I not pay my taxes?

Christians also build walls...fine, strong, good walls...strong enough to support God himself.
Such fine bricks they are.

Abstract wrote:
Often the best manipulator lets others think they are manipulating him.
That is a lesson I am learning right now.
Thank you for sharing.
I'm sure that being exposed as being a simpleton is your method of pretending you are one.
Very convincing.

It broke me out of my egoism and arrogance.

Remember...Need is the sensation of a Lack.
If you are one of those rare few who lacks nothing, then you need nothing.
It's a privilege to be around you.
All those bricks supporting you from the awareness of need.
Manipulating just because you do not need a thing. Toying with those that do.

I think I've been given a taste of my won medicine.
A lesson I will not soon forget.
I have been bested...by a slut, no less.
Time to slither into the darkness and await death in my isolated loneliness.

I so wish you are never put in a position where this aloofness is put to the test...when all the bricks come tumbling down.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:20 pm

perpetualburn wrote:

Nietzsche/Buddha...

Both are very sensitive to feminine but with an internal need and urgency to stand independent to some degree...

I am not sure. In tibetan Buddhism which is a hybrid offsping of original Buddhism, they aim at the void (zero) in their meditations. Original Buddhism is Brahmanism (one-ness). (Very much like the Bhagavad Gita, I believe). So what do you mean by "sensitive to the feminine"? Also in N.'s case?

Quote :

It's a source of strength and inspiration.

For the Buddha it wasn't. Unless you mean nature (birds and trees) by the feminine. Women weren't an inspiration for the Buddha, to be more precise. He lived a life of abstinence. And regarded women as lesser than men. Even as obstacles on the way to enlightenment.

Quote :

For Nietzsche, there's a need to give back to the feminine... (because without it he would have no strength/inspiration, would be incapable of producing beauty), to elevate it or rather elevate with it ( because a man knows that a women doesn't have the strength or the resources to elevate him... a woman cannot channel feminine energy into the same acute explosiveness that a man can )... clarity is a means to gain more understanding of the feminine( to become more sensitive, to become stronger/concentrated to give back more.... Clarity NOT as a final state after the "temptations" of women have been "passed through"(Buddha)

Didn't N. too live a life of abstinence? ( I am not so familiar with his Biography)

Quote :

He gives back in the form of a philosophy that is so concentrated it refreshes in the same way that traditional art does... the synergy of style, and insight in his words produce a state intoxication... it articulates sensitive states (and the observations that come with that ) that assert control without needing to control (like art ).

Yes. And one should not campare this with Evola, who was an academic. N. was a poet also.

Quote :

I started reading Julius Evola lately and am bothered by how dismissive he is of Nietzsche... I really like his style, but I when he says something like this I lose respect:

"One can see from this that Nietzsche's nihilism stops halfway. It sets up a new table of values, including a good and an evil. It presents a new ideal with dogmatic affirmation, whereas in reality this ideal is only one of many that could take shape in "life," and which is not in fact justified in and of itself, without a particular choice and without faith in it. The fact that the fixed point of reference set up beyond nihilism lacks a true foundation so long as one insists on pure immanence is already apparent in the part of Nietzsche's thought that deals with historical criticism and sociology"

I am glad Evola started some N. criticism. Criticism if it is well founded is actually the highest form of flattery. On the other hand we have the N. groupies. This pop-culture phenomenon N. ("fight club" and so on). Then he is used by some Nazis for their supremacy thinking. And then we have those who dismiss him outright, without taking the patience to engage in dealing with his work. Even though Evolas subjects were more esoteric than N.'s, he was even more of an academic, a scholar than him. Very rational. (I liked him first, now I lean more towards N.. I liked Spengler first too, but I like him the least of the 3 now.)
Back to top Go down
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 938
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:39 pm

Quote :
I am not sure. In tibetan Buddhism which is a hybrid offsping of original Buddhism, they aim at the void (zero) in their meditations. Original Buddhism is Brahmanism (one-ness). (Very much like the Bhagavad Gita, I believe). So what do you mean by "sensitive to the feminine"? Also in N.'s case?

Sensitivity to the effects of women/feminine... the energizing/intoxicating effects/being overwhelmed... N says in a letter to Lou Salome, "I owe to you the most beautiful dream of my life." Wasn't Buddha tempted by three beautiful women?

Quote :
For the Buddha it wasn't. Unless you mean nature (birds and trees) by the feminine. Women weren't an inspiration for the Buddha, to be more precise. He lifed a life of abstinence. And regarded women as lesser than men.

If you're sublimating your sexuality, feminine energy is a source of strength... it is THE source

Quote :
Didn't N. too live a life of abstinence? ( I am not so familiar with his Biography)

I believe I said as much... He was abstinent as far as I know... And not just regarding women...I remember somewhere he says that even one glass of wine would ruin an entire day. Sobriety starts on a physical level (no sex/no intoxicants of any kind) and continues on as sobriety of speech/thinking... I found that the temptation just to socialize is really strong, talk to someone just for the sake of it... but it's always unfufilling... Which I do NOT take to mean that socializing is a waste of time... it's socializing on a common level which is unfuflling(which is why I guess we're all here on this forum )..

Quote :
Yes. And one should not campare this with Evola, who was an academic. N. was a poet also.

I never said Evola was a philosopher.

Alot of "racialist" thinkers seem to love Evola ... He's easier to engage than Nietzsche... It's a lot easier to validate one's meager position after reading Evola than Nietzsche... Nietzsche is ultra discriminating... Racialist groups/new right/European pride...whatever you wanna call these movements, can not fit Nietzsche into their agenda without it becoming awkward and incongruent.

Quote :
I am glad Evola started some N. criticism. Criticism if it is well founded is actually the highest form of flattery. On the other hand we have the N. groupies. This pop-culture phenomenon N. ("fight club" and so on). Then he is used by some Nazis for their supremacy thinking. And then we have those who dismiss him outright, without taking the patience to engage in dealing with his work. Even though Evolas subjects were more esoteric than N.'s, he was even more of an academic, a scholar than him. Very rational. (I liked him first, now I lean more towards N.. I liked Spengler first too, but I like him the least of the 3 now.)

You don't find it incredibly odd that he doesn't give Nietzsche the same treatment as Buddha? Maybe he thought Nietzsche wasn't as important? And what does that mean then? Maye he was too affected by Nietzsche and couldn't engage him.... Didn't Carl Jung say he had to STOP reading Nietzsche or he was going to go crazy... BTW, how is Evola more esoteric than Nietzsche?

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Evola... and he was a great scholar, which is why it is soo disappointing he doesn't engage N. to any great extent( unless he has some book about N. i don't know about? )


Yes, there are "N. groupies"... there are casual readers that talk about N. is a very sophomoric way( this serves to keep N. around on even a low cultural level)... There are scholars of N. that publish books and academic articles that almost no one will ever read ( and there is some very, very good stuff on N. ) I still have access to my universities online academic journals like JSTOR... and there are so many articles that one would otherwise never have access too unless you want to dish out a bunch of money( if anyone here wants an article let me know and I'll try to find it and send it to you )... The academic books on N. are way to expensive... The people that publish these books and articles must think SO highly of themselves, because they don't engage in online discussions of N... I have a feeling they like to remain "esoteric"... but even N.'s work is widely available for free on the Internet... yet some "scholar" has too much "status" to publish their work for free, lol?

The "greatest" "Nietzschean" probably never talks about N., doesn't read him like a devout Catholic priest, and certainly never declares himself "Nietzschean."...If only because labeling yourself "Nietzschean" only leads to endless arguing until one party is confident and "self assured" in his "superior" interpretation of Nietzsche that he has "gained" the right to call himself Nietzschean..

Of course, on the other hand, there's those people that are proud NOT call themselves Nietzschean, because they are such "independent, free-thinkers" that they have no need of Nietzsche...I find these people to be the most pathetic because they think they can so easily move past Nietzsche...

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:57 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
you didn't answer my question at all, if you are uncapable of conceptualizing a state of life post-socialism then how can you claim such would exist?
Socialism?
You mean it has been applied in practice as it is in theory?
Capitalism and Communism as well?
How about Democracy, has it ever been applied in practice as it is supposed to work in theory?
Tell me more about this world you live in.

Who said I cannot envision a post-Modern world?
It begins my eliminating 90% of the genetic filth...you know a general cleanup of all pollution.

Why do you assume I want to change the world?

If I describe my father, and am lucid and brave enough and honest enough to see both the good things and the bad things about him, am I trying to change him?
Do I hate him?

I like you, and the world, just the way it is.
Why would I want to change sheep? Where would my lamb-chops come from?
In analyzing sheep, their social dynamics, behavior, psychology, am I proposing a "correction"? Do I dream of raising them out of sheepness?
let me rephrase: could you imagine a system of life post social behavior... i did not mean socialism in terms of politics...

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
why place intelligence on the pedestal but that it aids in your survival?
You are free to value your warm bed and your full belly more, if you wish.
There is an interesting thing about intelligence: it leads to conflict with nature when it is freed from basic necessities.
It detaches.
It's a preliminary stage...like in the grieving process.
Some get stuck in the grief...others in the anger...others deny what they fear.
I should say aids in your survival and contentment...beyond those to I too greatly value intelligence.


Quote :

Abstract wrote:
You want to disbelieve that my contentment is valid because you do not have it, it would seem.
Indeed.
A Christian once accused me of hating God.
He was also happy. All he needed was God.

I think you are about as content as your activities expose you to be.
Look how active you are around here.

If not, please provide an example of a creative, procreative, activity not rooted in need or in lack, need being the perception of lack.
If you do not, then you can seek what you want in the others, because I do not want to make the mistake of thinking you came here wanting to prove yourself against me. That would be a msitake based no my egotism and not an honest assessment of your actions.
Given the quality of your posts, thus far - without wanting to claim that I know your quality, your real core, inside, quality - I think my friends here can deal with you easily.
It is indeed easier for you to pawn me off to your friends then deal with me yourself. but I am interested in the shepherd not the sheep.

Quote :

Abstract wrote:
You simply wish to validate your social incapacity by calling it more precise you run from any indication of your one wrongness in that you value intelligence, indeed, so much and thus fear that you lack intelligence in some regard.
Was that an argument?
Tell me more about my "social incapacity."
How does it manifest, as opposed to your social capacity.

Am I without friends?
Am I poor?
Do I not get laid?
Will I never procreate?
Do I not own a car?
Have I not traveled?
Do I not have a big house or many things in it?

Tell me about the social cost of my dysfunction.
It manifests in your lack of progress towards higher levels of contentment and higher levels of sustainability of that contentment. Your contentment is more temporary then you think.

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:29 pm

Abstract wrote:
let me rephrase: could you imagine a system of life post social behavior... i did not mean socialism in terms of politics...
You seem to be ignoring me posts.

The answer is YES!!!
Look around you, you whore.
Do you think social behavior just emerged out of the nothingness?
What preceded social methods of survival?
Did we just emerge into culture?

But who is talking about the elimination of all social behavior?
Degrees, you simpleton, not absolutes.
Break free of your jail, you pathetic woman.
You are stuck in absolutism...yet claim that man simply uses absolutism to express himself.
Here you are proving the opposite.
Thanks for being a living example of Modern decay.

Whore...if I belong to a group of 100, is that the same as belonging to a group of 1,000,000,000?
Remember what I said about weakness and social behavior?

We are all weak, to one DEGREE or another, you whore, not equally so.
The size of the group we dependent upon exposes the size of our weakness.
Herbivorous congregate in huge herds...predators in smaller ones.
Why?

Why does the Tiger not congregate at all?
Why does the Polar Bear live in solitude?

Abstract wrote:
I should say aids in your survival and contentment...beyond those to I too greatly value intelligence.
Liar!
You admitted to being a whore - proudly so.
You sell your fake friendship to maintain what you can of your fake contentment...based on dependence.
Then you come here claiming you do not need.

You are a transparent whore...but if you wish to consider yourself complex, please make my life easier than it already is.

You claimed to not need and to be content...yet you admitted to needing food and water and oxygen and the myriads of idiots, those bricks, proving that you DO need, though you pretend to yourself that you are above it.
Therefore, you need nutrition, and hydration, and oxygenation and many others to protect and service your needs...yet you need nothing, you hypocritical whore.
Why?
Because you need to at least protect your ego, from the shame of being both needy and stupid.
If one of the two was fact, then you can find pride and identity in it.

Abstract wrote:
It manifests in your lack of progress towards higher levels of contentment and higher levels of sustainability of that contentment. Your contentment is more temporary then you think.
How discontent am I?
What am I discontent about?

Where are you content?
A drug addict is content...so is a religious fanatic.

Whore...who said anything about absolutes?
Turd, who talked about change and ephemeral states of contentment?

You claimed to be content...not I.
Outside of your inebriated delusions and the content of idiots (ignorance is bliss) we are discussing degree, you WHORE!!!

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:49 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
Sensitivity to the effects of women/feminine... the energizing/intoxicating effects/being overwhelmed...

Siddartha had at least a wife, before he went to live as a beggar and later reached enlightenment. My point is: that I think sensitivity has nothing to do with buddhist meditation. But I may be wrong. I only experienced the tibetan kind so far.

Quote :

N says in a letter to Lou Salome, "I owe to you the most beautiful dream of my life." Wasn't Buddha tempted by three beautiful women?

Yes, but then he was still Siddartha Gotama. He only became the Buddha, when he reached enlightenment. (This is the interpretation, I prefer. I know some Tibetans and maybe Indians also, claim that he was the Buddha before.)

Quote :

If you're sublimating your sexuality, feminine energy is a source of strength... it is THE source

Tell me more about it. I don't know if it applies to Siddartha/Buddha, but this sounds interesting. I haven't heard of it before.

Quote :

I believe I said as much... He was abstinent as far as I know... And not just regarding women...I remember somewhere he says that even one glass of wine would ruin an entire day. Sobriety starts on a physical level (no sex/no intoxicants of any kind) and continues on as sobriety of speech/thinking...

Yes, you said that. I failed to ask: how that fits in with his Dionysos-Worship? Wasn't Dionysos the God of wine/women and all that!?

Quote :

I never said Evola was a philosopher.

In my opinion he was the closest thing to a philosopher, I can think of, amongst the more recently living. I can think of no Philosopher alive today, though. N may have been the last one, from my perspective. Since I never understood Heidegger.

Quote :

Alot of "racialist" thinkers seem to love Evola ... He's easier to engage than Nietzsche... It's a lot easier to validate one's meager position after reading Evola than Nietzsche... Nietzsche is ultra discriminating... Racialist groups/new right/European pride...whatever you wanna call these movements, can not fit Nietzsche into their agenda without it becoming awkward and incongruent.

Yes. And that's why I love Nietzsche! Deleuze/Guattari are/were leftists and apply Nietzsche. Michel Foucault too.

Quote :

You don't find it incredibly odd that he doesn't give Nietzsche the same treatment as Buddha?

I own Evola's Buddha book. I've started, but put it aside. He wrote it as suitable for our time of decline. Ascesis and all that as a practical way of living. A tool. Spartan lifestyle. Nietzsche was a liberal! From my reading and except some of WTP which may be written by his sister. Evola hated him.

Quote :

Maybe he thought Nietzsche wasn't as important? And what does that mean then? Maye he was too affected by Nietzsche and couldn't engage him.... Didn't Carl Jung say he had to STOP reading Nietzsche or he was going to go crazy...

It was Freud who said he couldn't read any more of N otherwise he couldn't write any of his own.

Quote :

BTW, how is Evola more esoteric than Nietzsche?

I am a hermetic esoteric. So was Evola. Nietzsche was dionysian, even if "just" on a theoretical (metaphysical) level (which may actually be higher), unlike Crowley, who worshipped Pan and lived the satyrian lifeystyle.

Quote :

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Evola... and he was a great scholar, which is why it is soo disappointing he doesn't engage N. to any great extent( unless he has some book about N. i don't know about? )

Just the chapter in "Ride the tiger", I know of. All online as pdf.

Quote :

Yes, there are "N. groupies"... there are casual readers that talk about N. is a very sophomoric way( this serves to keep N. around on even a low cultural level)...

So was I, in my early 20's. He has this appeal to the young. I wouldn't even discredit that. It's the "Sturm und Drang" (english: storm and stress) phase in life.

Quote :

There are scholars of N. that publish books and academic articles that almost no one will ever read ( and there is some very, very good stuff on N. ) I still have access to my universities online academic journals like JSTOR... and there are so many articles that one would otherwise never have access too unless you want to dish out a bunch of money( if anyone here wants an article let me know and I'll try to find it and send it to you )...

Copy and paste some interesting passages on here, if you like. N. is our common friend/enemy of this forum, it seems.

Quote :

The academic books on N. are way to expensive... The people that publish these books and articles must think SO highly of themselves, because they don't engage in online discussions of N... I have a feeling they like to remain "esoteric"... but even N.'s work is widely available for free on the Internet... yet some "scholar" has too much "status" to publish their work for free, lol?

In Germany you get most German writers books used for cheap on Amazon Marketplace or elsewhere (without the shipping).

Quote :

The "greatest" "Nietzschean" probably never talks about N., doesn't read him like a devout Catholic priest, and certainly never declares himself "Nietzschean."...If only because labeling yourself "Nietzschean" only leads to endless arguing until one party is confident and "self assured" in his "superior" interpretation of Nietzsche that he has "gained" the right to call himself Nietzschean..

Of course, on the other hand, there's those people that are proud NOT call themselves Nietzschean, because they are such "independent, free-thinkers" that they have no need of Nietzsche...I find these people to be the most pathetic because they think they can so easily move past Nietzsche...

Well on here one doesn't get away with anything easily. But there are some useful replies others give sometimes. Just dive in it! Welcome!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:19 pm

I am done wasting my time with you satyr... all I can say is that you ever so deeply misunderstand me, and what i am trying to say.
Back to top Go down
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 938
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:46 pm

Laconian wrote:


Siddartha had at least a wife, before he went to live as a beggar and later reached enlightenment. My point is: that I think sensitivity has nothing to do with buddhist meditation. But I may be wrong. I only experienced the tibetan kind so far.



Pretty sure if the Buddha wasn't hyper-sensitive he wouldn't of had any urgency to even attempt what he attempted... He wouldn't of been tempted by those three women if he wasn't sensitive(susceptible to the effects)... I think a big difference is that Buddha seeks a detached sensitivity...


From "The Doctrine of Awakening,"

"For the effective use of the technique in question, the first condition is that con-
sciousness should be already concentrated and detached and capable of maintaining
itself by its own efforts: only then, when the peripheral sensitivity has been neutralized,
can one keep one's feet, can one go up rather than down, can one set out to attain a
purified superconsciousness instead of sinking into the morass of the visionary or low-
grade medium. In the second place one needs, as we said, adequate spiritual tension,
pervaded by the idea of awakening, almost like the state of a compressed spring on the
point of release. "

Tension is a result of sensitivity.



Quote :



Tell me more about it. I don't know if it applies to Siddartha/Buddha, but this sounds interesting. I haven't heard of it before.


Where else would you be getting your energy from if you're sublimating your sexuality(which constantly wants to release itself physically into the feminine, which wants to discharge itself)... feminine is the source of tension(life/death...a "relationship" with a woman that doesn't lead to children serves only to help you to create something/form yourself IF you're so "inspired" by the connection you have... Downside is that women are sexually insatiable and many act like needy children, so generally speaking, men end up wasting most of the time they could be used perfecting themselves, trying to please something that can never be pleased... only to get layed again, and again, and again... until you've used up all your sexual energy/tension... have become "equalized"... a man-slave to women's sexual/emotional needs.... Which isn't to say it isn't possible to become something great/give back in a great way, while having sex regularly... it's just less likely...you lose so much tension becoming wrapped up in the routines of women...




Quote :


Yes, you said that. I failed to ask: how that fits in with his Dionysos-Worship? Wasn't Dionysos the God of wine/women and all that!?


Since when did Nietzsche "worship" Dionysus... It's a symbol... The most intoxicating effects of women/the feminine can really only be felt when your dead sober... other "intoxicants" like wine actually dilute the effects....They're just poor substitutes that leave you feeling unfufilled.

Women will always be attracted to strong, healthy good looking, athletic males because, for one, they symbolize a being that is capable of handling their sexual needs best... Physical prowess requires sobriety... sobriety signifies alertness/attentiveness to her needs... You could say that women are in a sort of perpetual intoxication and it needs to be contrasted with a perpetual sobriety... An intoxicated man is seen as weak and effeminate... a man unconcerned with his strength and the building of it.

Of course, physical prowess isn't the apex of "masculinity"

Yes, women often go for the smarter, richer man to breed with... but in the back of her mind, she would prefer the complete genetic package(money/brains/brawn)... and it's often not easy to choose between these types of males for women... Especially since, even in poverty in a first world country, your offspring still have just as a good chance of survival... Thus, the choice comes down to comfort... The easier life is often chosen because of the culture we live in... Women routinely throw away their genetic potential to be pampered... Women fuck around with the good lookin guys in their 20's then marry the uglier ones in their 30's... then romanticize about the young good looking guys they should of bred with when they're old and withered up... Of course, she's unsatisfied in either scenario...


Quote :


I own Evola's Buddha book. I've started, but put it aside. He wrote it as suitable for our time of decline. Ascesis and all that as a practical way of living. A tool. Spartan lifestyle. Nietzsche was a liberal! From my reading and except some of WTP which may be written by his sister. Evola hated him.


How is Nietzsche a liberal, how do you define that?

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:32 pm

perpetualburn wrote:

Pretty sure if the Buddha wasn't hyper-sensitive he wouldn't of had any urgency to even attempt what he attempted... He wouldn't of been tempted by those three women if he wasn't sensitive(susceptible to the effects)... I think a big difference is that Buddha seeks a detached sensitivity...

I think he seeked no sensitivity at all. I wouldn't bring Buddha and "sensitivity" together whatsoever. Even if meditation might enhance your sensitivity. But that should be a side effect on the path. Nothing to cling to.

Quote :

Tension is a result of sensitivity.

This is one option. But tension can also be the vertical tension towards a higher goal: the overman or enlightenment.

Quote :

...you lose so much tension becoming wrapped up in the routines of women...

This I agree with. Not with the increase-of-tension-through-women-part.

Quote :

Since when did Nietzsche "worship" Dionysus... It's a symbol... The most intoxicating effects of women/the feminine can really only be felt when your dead sober... other "intoxicants" like wine actually dilute the effects....They're just poor substitutes that leave you feeling unfufilled.

I agree. I am more a Buddhist though than a Nietzschean, so I wouldn't know about that.

Quote :

Yes, women often go for the smarter, richer man to breed with... but in the back of her mind, she would prefer the complete genetic package(money/brains/brawn)... and it's often not easy to choose between these types of males for women... Especially since, even in poverty in a first world country, your offspring still have just as a good chance of survival... Thus, the choice comes down to comfort... The easier life is often chosen because of the culture we live in... Women routinely throw away their genetic potential to be pampered... Women fuck around with the good lookin guys in their 20's then marry the uglier ones in their 30's... then romanticize about the young good looking guys they should of bred with when they're old and withered up... Of course, she's unsatisfied in either scenario...

I studied MGTOW Forums! God bless the man'o'sphere.

Quote :

How is Nietzsche a liberal, how do you define that?

I am not a Philosopher. So I will start by 2 Nietzsche quotes. And from there try a definition.
First off my Nietzsche is the one from Zarathustra, which he considered his main work all throughout his life.

from Zarathustra, First Part, Section 9 (my translation):

'To tempt away many from the herd - that's what I came for. Folk and herd shall be angry at me: Robber is what the shepherds shall call me.'

First Part, Second Section (my translation)

'Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind"'.

So these are my two quotes. He is there for the (poor) masses. He has the same audience as liberals. He doesn't address the rich or any kind of elite. He addresses the masses. He wants to collect from the masses. And not only few, but MANY. The second quote underlines his love for mankind. No, elitism. Nothing of the sort WTP might hint at.

Liberal for me, means free. Liberated. It's of course also associated with the political Left today. Liberal from my p.o.v. means not caring about politics or any sort of elitism whatsoever. To be above and beyond even that aim. Of course you could call that elitism as well. It pays tribute to the constant flux of all "things". The ever changing. It also means "Overcoming". The possibility of overcoming. From my experience you cannot overcome a thing, in this case "man" or "mankind", towards the aim of the "overman", if you do not first love "mankind". Love is the single condition for transmutation. (Alchemy) The process of making lead to gold. In the terminology of hermetic esotericism.
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1559
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:35 pm

Quote :
I am not a Philosopher.

I agree. You are a cultist.

Genetically you are a patchwork of German and Japanese.... and this may go far in explaining why you are also, philosophically, religiously and intellectually a patchwork of various bits and pieces from the rituals, thoughts, and beliefs of diverse cultures.

A mongrel in blood and a mongrel in thought.

It is not as if you are even discriminatory in this.... you jump at whatever shiny piece of belief you find... hoping that this new affectation and ornament will better define you and embellish you as an individual.
You are nothing. But with the relics and hybrids of others, the trappings of identity... you hope to find something.

Yourself maybe. You're a hopeless, stupid child.

Quote :
from Zarathustra, First Part, Section 9 (my translation):

'To tempt away many from the herd - that's what I came for. Folk and herd shall be angry at me: Robber is what the shepherds shall call me.'

Zarathustra: A book for everyone and no one. A book addressed to a people who do not yet exist, to outcasts who cast themselves out - from those outcasts will spring a people and from that people an overman.

What is man to the overman? A laughing stock or a painful embarassment.

The overman has overcome man, surpassed man. As man is to the ape, so is the overman to man.

"The lightning from the dark cloud man." The storm is a prelude; it's consummation is the lightning.

In the marketplace in the beginning of TSZ, Zarathustra describes the Last Man to the people. The Last Man is a race which has sacrificed its future for the sake of its present. A barren race from which a new people cannot spring.
The Last Man cannot produce the Overman.

"You must have chaos in you to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in you!"

Zarathustra addressed the herd in the marketplace in the beginning of TSZ. They ignored his Overman and begged him to teach them the Last Men. Disappointed he says:
"They do not understand me: I am not the mouth for these ears."
He then leaves the marketplace, carrying the corpse of a tightrope walker.... a man who died executing his craft. Symbolic of Zarathustra's failure with the herd.

The entire opening of TSZ is the description of the futility of appealing to the herd and a warning against it. Not all truths are spoken for all ears.

Later in part 4, various Higher Men are encountered, each representing a particular ideology and the type of individual inclined to follow it: the scientist, the buddhist, the christian, the nihilist, the atheist, etc.
Their purpose is to seduce Zarathustra to his "final sin": pity. Their cry of distress lures him to them and from him they find a form of redemption.

Seeing their dependence, and their inadequacy as prospective Overmen, Zarathustra rejects them and overcomes his final temptation.

To an artist, the quality of their clay and of their tools is as crucial to the realization of their vision as their vision itself.

This is inherently elitist. It does not appeal to the "all". It does not propose to "heal" all, or "save" all or "redeem" all.
Typical that you would not understand it. You should go read some more Hubbard. He's more on your level.

"Robber" is what the shepherds will call Zarathustra, so he says. Today, they would call him sexist, racist, homophobic, fascist, bigoted, bully, hater, prejudiced.

The shepherds are the liberals, you idiot. The herd is the average moron in modernity, like you. To "lure many away from the herd" is to overcome and surpass modernity.
In Nietzsche's time the herd was christianity and the shepherds were the priests. Same shit, different era.

Quote :
First Part, Second Section (my translation)

'Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind"'.

Yes... he does. As he loves life and wisdom.

He does not hate mankind. He does not believe it should be redeemed, or saved, or cured. He wishes that mankind would become "better and more evil" for only when the worst in man is cultivated is the best in man also ripe and ready to bear fruit.
He despised mediocrity.

The part you are quoting is in response to being asked, by a christian hermit, why Zarathustra had left his solitude.

Zarathustra goes on to say that he bears mankind a gift - the Overman.

As we have seen above, not all are worthy of that gift. He loves mankind because he believes it is still able to overcome itself.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:56 pm

I agree.

Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:54 pm

@Satyr, Abstract is just a meek version of another like his kind; Sahlins.

The Western Illusions of Human Nature

Review: Western Illusions

In that book, Sahlins argues, humanity is the original state, and that Culture preceded Nature.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:55 pm

Apaosha, have you read Lampert's commentary to Zarathustra?

Just curious.

And a personal question, if I may.

The Germanics whom you say you feel closest to at heart, have always championed storm/thunder/lightning deities; what is the reason for your preferring an I.E. Drought-deity for your avatar? I'm wondering if the deity plays some significant role in a myth I'm not aware of?
Of course, this is assuming it is the namesake deity that your avatar refers to...

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:17 pm

Lyssa wrote:
@Satyr, Abstract is just a meek version of another like his kind; Sahlins.

The Western Illusions of Human Nature

Review: Western Illusions

In that book, Sahlins argues, humanity is the original state, and that Culture preceded Nature.
Does he?

How sad.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1559
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:43 am

Lyssa wrote:
Apaosha, have you read Lampert's commentary to Zarathustra?

Just curious.

I've never read him.

Quote :
And a personal question, if I may.

The Germanics whom you say you feel closest to at heart, have always championed storm/thunder/lightning deities; what is the reason for your preferring an I.E. Drought-deity for your avatar? I'm wondering if the deity plays some significant role in a myth I'm not aware of?
Of course, this is assuming it is the namesake deity that your avatar refers to...

The mythology has no significance. It's just a name I use online. I have others, but here as apaosha I am me.

When I was younger, I used to write. Apaosha was a character I invested a lot of emotion into. I gave the name meaning.
It means: the bearer of a great pain and anger and love. Writing apaosha was laying my soul bare. Apaosha is my soul.

When I said I was most influenced by the Germans, Greeks and Japanese, I meant it in the philosophical sense.... and in the context of being Irish by nationality and birth, but not culturally/memetically. I looked elsewhere.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:57 pm

apaosha wrote:

When I was younger, I used to write. Apaosha was a character I invested a lot of emotion into. I gave the name meaning.
It means: the bearer of a great pain and anger and love. Writing apaosha was laying my soul bare. Apaosha is my soul.

I can relate; thank you. Incidentally, the Iranian Apaosha meaning Drought, or that which sucks up all the moisture and water can be likened to what both Heraclitus and Evola called the Dry or right hand-path as opposed to the Wet/left hand-path. The dry-path was so to speak in martial terms, "the arresting of all activity" which moisture promotes, for a still and focussed, intense concentration. Where you do not even shake or stir one bit; you sublimate it to a deep point, you call your Core. Archery for example demands this. Surgeons without shaky hands, another. The dry-path basically stops the energy from depleting and weakening in every direction.

Quote :
When I said I was most influenced by the Germans, Greeks and Japanese, I meant it in the philosophical sense.... and in the context of being Irish by nationality and birth, but not culturally/memetically. I looked elsewhere.

Understand.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:27 pm

"The dry soul is wisest and best." - Heraclitus
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:33 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
Of course, on the other hand, there's those people that are proud NOT call themselves Nietzschean, because they are such "independent, free-thinkers" that they have no need of Nietzsche...I find these people to be the most pathetic because they think they can so easily move past Nietzsche...

Yes, so easily...
The mentality of the easily satisfied; ones who lack a self-demanding passion for a thorough comprehensive exploitative unconsoled confrontation; wanting to go to the world's end and not permitting oneself the comfort and consolation of easy conclusions: "i'm done here";
"Compelled to enter into a state of deep rumination, the inscrutable lizard, whose eyes are able to rotate in multiple directions, forces us to remain awake, to struggle to also hear with our eyes instead of continuing to read only with our ears as if we’ve clearly understood and incorporated the event of the text with such ease. This isn’t a matter of simple cognition."
The Riddle of the Double Gedankenstrich

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:42 am

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
You accuse me of reading into your words yet this is surely because you are expecting similar behavior to your own in others.
No, I accuse you of being bad at reading between the lines.

We all project...but not equally well.
We all simplify and generalize, but not equally well.
We all fear, but we are not equally controlled by this fear.
Degrees of divergence, no absolute divergence.

We all have an imprecise, incomplete, theoretical, perspective...but this does not mean that all perspectives are equally precise, or equally rational, or equally clear.

Abstract wrote:
if my assumptions are wrong so be it we will get to know each other by deleting the inaccurate ones.
Why do you assume I want to get to know you?
Are you desperately looking to make yourself noticeable by finding a crack in my opinions?
You are letting your need dictate your understanding.

Abstract wrote:
Often an accusation upon a person can be a perlocutionary act such as to arrive at knowledge other then would be typically evident by the expected response.
Yes...and so you admit that you are just poking around.

Abstract wrote:
Anyways... I said where your flaw in thinking was there but apparently you didn't see it.
No, I saw a declarative statement concerning a "flaw," as I have many, many, many times before from many, many, many others.
Then it was followed by some reference to a "beginning" and "end," which is actually the opposite of my positions.
So, I filed you under "M"...for moron.
Then I played along.

Abstract wrote:
This may be my own fault in not iterating well. what i mean is that it is flawed to think that what is civilized starts with a given behavior beyond simply being characterized by having some social behavior in general, perhaps. Thus it has no "beginning". But really i was wrong to say that it does if it does indeed have its beginning in social behavior though it is arguable i think that perhaps being a loner can be a civilized nature as well in which case there would be no "beginning" to what characterizes something as civilized...To be a pack animal is a level of civilization in other words.
My positions here is that the world has no absolute...it lacks it. Man needs absolutes to both understand, conceptualize and feel safe and certain.

The idea here, as if I haven't repeated it about as million times before, that need is what drives creativity, pro-creativity, activity in short.

I hunt because I feel a void in me, a lack, as hunger.
I create because I need to share; I want to break from my solitude.
i seek knowledge because I am ignorant.

The irony being that because of how the human mind works (consciousness) I can only express this absence by formulating absolutes.
The deficiency of language; a method constructing static concepts to define fluid phenomena.

There is no growth with no weakness.
The organism either perishes or it adapts...it changes, it grows towards a direction that helps in its survival...in an ever-changing environment.

For instance, the evolution of intelligence was the result of a weakness seeking a compensatory trait...a method to survive.
Of course there is no Will...it is all naturally selected: mutations offering a slight advantage, then added upon, and again...and again, until a sophistication is achieved.
It's all trial and error: (inter)activity...the Flux.

No beginning, no end.
Life is no end...it is not holy...it is not sacred.
Social behavior is the result of a weakness in the particular organisms that first found success in communal (inter)action...even if it began as a higher rate of survival against predation when in groups.    

If this possibility bothers you on some level, I really do not give a shit.
Go to ILP and share in your loving embraces of Modern Mythologies.
If you think you have a superior theory, a stronger alternative...then present it.
Let's compare notes.
But I need a challenge. if you offer me the usual crap, then there is nothing in it for me...go away declaring victory...who....the fuck....CARES?

There are countless examples of species finding niche behaviors to increase their otherwise low survival rates.

The cheetah, for example, sacrifices muscle, strength, to increase speed.
It's survival strategy is focused, at a cost.
It can use no other method to hunt. Its investment in speed makes it weaker in comparison to other cats.
The lion went the social route.
Get it?
In social survival tactics it is schooling, forming groups...which eventually result in specialized forms serving specialized roles.
Male/Female are such specialized roles.

Abstract wrote:
Sorry i misread or misunderstood what you were saying thought you were implying or referencing something else..
I asked you if you were a whore...a slut.
You seem keen on the idea that your love is public property, which you, theoretically, give out to one and all...so I assume that prostituting yourself and making your friendships and relationships a valueless joke, is what keeps you safe in the knowledge that others are also forced to be whores.
Therefore, if all share their love, indiscriminately, and their friendships and compassion, you must all be a community of sluts, lost in the hedonism of shared masturbation.

Are, YOU, a slut?
Are, YOU, a whore?

From where I stand, if your loyalty and kindness is so free and easy to attain...then it's of no value to me.
If I purchase a whore for $5 and get lost in her faked love for an hour, should I be proud?

She's a whore...she'll sell herself to the next, and then the next...so she's a cheap whore.
Are you a cheap whore?
You sound like one.

Am I playing now?

You're right that evolution, existence, is flux, but you hold the common narrative of natural selection held by modern science which contradicts itself: in assuming that natural selection is unintentional, "natural," a redirecting metaphor, you in effect mystifying nature, the organism, and all its processes/activity: to you and them, it's not that the organism, in ontogeny, contextually, accordingly, uses its perpetuation, genetic disposition, to better serve, adapt, itself in its environment, but rather its inner workings all separately have their own Will, through whatever directing power, something nongiven, metaphysical, God, that is not the organism as a whole and its effort, activity.
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:36 pm

Is he mystifying nature or are you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Reasoning for Morality

Back to top Go down
 
The Reasoning for Morality
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Religious Origins Of Morality And Ethics
» The Post- Modern Crisis Of Social Morality And Ethics

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: