The Reasoning for Morality

Lyssa wrote:

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

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

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

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

Does he?

How sad.

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.

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.

"The dry soul is wisest and best." - Heraclitus

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.—"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

Is he mystifying nature or are you?