Deconstructing Adam

Quote :

Apparently not... or you wouldn't be so confused.

I wouldn't say I was confused. I know what is happening. It's not a matter of making a choice for me, one or the other. it's just something I have observed within myself that I occasionally participate in.

If I really like and prefer oranges, but I occasionally choose the apple it doesn't mean I like the oranges any less.

Quote :

What does that mean?  Spiritually you don't feel connected to women?  What does woman mean to you?

Outside of sexual attraction, I feel nothing regarding women. My mother can be considered an exception because of the biological connection, but even then as I get older that emotional connection is starting to fade.

I've known men to break down over women, to cry over them and even commit suicide over them, my father being one of them. I can sort of understand that they can get emotionally involved and "love" them, but I have never been like that, they have never had that impact on me. They are meaningless to me outside their reproductive value.

What do they mean to you?

Quote :

No, she's not.  Woman is biologically made to handle/receive male sexuality better than men is...is capable of far more orgasms than man...sex doesn't exhaust woman the same way it does men... I know some guys that have sex ten times a day with their girlfriend... I can't imagine how utterly unhealthy it would be to do that to a guy.

Yeah, vaginally she is, but in the context of anal sex it would still be just as unhealthy. Im not saying two wrongs make a right here, just pointing that out. If we remove the woman from the picture, sex ten times a day for ANY man in ANY way that involves ejaculation would be unhealthy, it would lead to many imbalances.. the dopamine and the iron would be depleted, erectile dysfunction will take place and ultimately a lot of many different type of mental health problems, and other things..

Those guys who have that much sex a day with the same girl are not actually having sex, that's a type of abuse. If you disagree, then how are any of these men different to me..are they benefiting from the reproductive value every time or are they short circuiting nature using protection and turning sex into nothing more than just pleasure?

You want to pick and choose when sex is about pleasure and when sex is about reproduction, but as long as it's in a heterosexual context then it must be ok...but when the homosexual uses sex in the context of pleasure it's so wrong!..because he can't pass on his genes....c'mon now..

Quote :

I''ll have to take your word... The majority of the best athletes(most physically aggressive) are straight... If we're talking about sublimated aggression... then even art/music/poetry is going to be dominated by straight males.

Quote :

When?  Maybe when you stop experimenting with guys...

Aggression was mentioned in a sexual context, you said the aggression that comes from "sexual attraction to women".

A lot of that energy that comes from the sexual attraction towards women is naturally destructive. If the heterosexual man cannot control it he enters into a state of madness, often killing himself, killing other men, killing women and rapping women... waging wars, engaging in terrorism all other types of other things...or he can just have sex times a day, maybe that will help him be less destructive.

This has always happened and probably always will.

It has nothing to do with men experimenting with other men.

I fail to see how this greatness of this heterosexual energy and potential is so beneficial. Even if you were to suggest a "correct" way of using it, technically it would be an imposed incorrect exploitation and fall into a type of manipulation. It becomes anti-life.

Similar to If you work hard in this life, strive with good deeds and suffer the hardships of faith then you will be rewarded with 70 virgins.

The energy is already being used correctly by nature.
The man is disposable, no man is a "victim" to this attraction.

Quote :

Well, I'd say there's a big difference between holding hands and kissing... but a real man requires distance.

Perhaps. Overtime I have learned how important that distance is for men, or even personal space. I don't think it's something that can be changed. It's very deeply rooted, even in myself. If my personal space is invaded my reflex response is instant physical aggression.

I don't project myself onto people. I respect that space. I only seek out those similar to myself, "get to know them" and then when trust is established, we can get a little more comfortable.

There was a reason why the Greeks placed male love (agape) above female, sexual, love (eros).

It's a matter of not talking sex as being more than it is.
This "connection", some speak of, I consider a one which indicates a son, connecting to the female's maternal essence.
Sex, physical, contact does not suffice.
It's like eating, or sleeping, or playing around.
It's fun, it's enjoyable, but that is it.

My position approaches that of Diogenes, the Cynic...and I think of sex as more of a nuisance.

Sex is a method of reproducing, and that is it.
I've come across men who marry and their wife either does not want children or cannot have children, and I wonder:
Why, the fuck, marry, at all?
What's the point?
If companionship is what you want, then men are better suited for that role.
If sexual gratification is what you want, then consider it part of your weekly expenses to hire a prostitute.
Less headaches.
If you want all in one, then...good luck.
Usually sex ruins the intellectual connection, because it inserts in the relationship, emotion, jealousy, that physical aspect.

My conclusion is that when penetration has been experienced by a female, the event is seminal for her. It is, after all, an intrusion within her very being; a breach of her personal space.
She may submit to it willingly, enthusiastically, and she may very well enjoy it, but it is still a submission she cannot take lightly.
the more she loves herself, the less lightly she takes it.

There's a love hate, stance to sex, for females...and since men also have a feminine side, for men, to a lesser extent.
They want it but they also feel violated by it, vulnerable after they've experienced it.
The man is held accountable and they demand restitution...or at least constant reassurance.

This is why females want to make men feel just as violated and insecure after coitus, by using the system.
The man who fucks, can GET fucked, in turn. This is female retribution.

We've all heard of the Nietzsche position that the beggar when receiving what he begged for, from the generous giver, along with his gratitude that he feels animosity, a bit of resentiment.
The giving and the receiving are not as clear-cut as selflessness overflowing with plenitude, and the ones who lacks picking up from the abundance.
In the act of giving one asserts dominance; in the act of receiving one admits to being dominated.

This also applies to the sexual act.
The one penetrating may feel compassion, trust, positivity, towards the one he is penetrating but along with it he feels power.
The one being penetrated may feel spiritual connectivity, trust, love, towards the one (s)he allows to penetrate him/her, but along with it (s)he feels a bit of resentment.              

Now, I cannot imagine feeling anything but rage and shame at the idea of being penetrated, and I dislike being given gifts.
So, you can see the connection.
Obsessive preoccupation with females and how to make them like us, and how to keep them happy, is, I believe, the bane of western man.
So much energy focused on something as mundane as fucking.
Most of the time it does not even have a goal, a purpose, it is fucking just for the sake of fucking, or coitus because we feel appreciated, loved, normal, a part of the world, acceptable not only by the female but, through her, by the entire social system.

A single man is shunned, ignored, mistrusted...but if he marries the same people suddenly change their minds,. He now becomes trustworthy, more acceptable, not as weird...they invite him and his wife over for dinner, when before they wanted nothing to do with him....because now he has proven to be like them, part of "normal society."
A divorced man is more trustworthy than a man who has never married....particularly after he reaches a certain age.
With women it's more about pity.
Other women may react to them as men do to unmarried males, but the spinster slowly loses her threat and becomes something pitiful. Her and her cats, or some pet, taking up the spot for the baby she never had.  

I mean, lets' be honest. Even women will admit to this.
I've been in a group of men chatting, joking, having a good time, and the moment a female becomes a part of the group, the energy changes.
Suddenly the boyish camaraderie, becomes competitive.
The same comments which were funny before, become hurtful.
All men becomes careful with their language, or what they express with it.
There's no more free expression of ideas.
All of a sudden all is filtered through self-consciousness, referring to current social and cultural standards.

I've hear females say - the more tom-boyish - that they prefer the company of men...and not because of the sexual component, but because men are more laid-back, more casual, more forgiving, less catty and obnoxious and sensitive.

Quote :

I wouldn't say I was confused. I know what is happening. It's not a matter of making a choice for me, one or the other. it's just something I have observed within myself that I occasionally participate in.

If I really like and prefer oranges, but I occasionally choose the apple it doesn't mean I like the oranges any less.

I would say it does. Women are in abundant supply. If you were as attracted to them as you say you were, it would be ridiculous to venture out every once and a while just to get off. You're clearly more concerned with experimenting with different types of pleasure. Maybe a refined hedonist or something.

Try this experiment. Go to the gym, workout really hard and tell me if in that state of almost complete exhaustion you still look at men with lust.

Quote :

Outside of sexual attraction, I feel nothing regarding women. My mother can be considered an exception because of the biological connection, but even then as I get older that emotional connection is starting to fade.

I've known men to break down over women, to cry over them and even commit suicide over them, my father being one of them. I can sort of understand that they can get emotionally involved and "love" them, but I have never been like that, they have never had that impact on me. They are meaningless to me outside their reproductive value.

You say that "they have never had an impact on me" as if to say you have this strong admirable indifference (by comparing yourself to weaker men), but really, the fact that women don't affect you profoundly shows your weakness... One can be intoxicated by women and have self-control.

Quote :

What do they mean to you?

read through my previous posts

Quote :

Yeah, vaginally she is, but in the context of anal sex it would still be just as unhealthy. Im not saying two wrongs make a right here, just pointing that out. If we remove the woman from the picture, sex ten times a day for ANY man in ANY way that involves ejaculation would be unhealthy, it would lead to many imbalances.. the dopamine and the iron would be depleted, erectile dysfunction will take place and ultimately a lot of many different type of mental health problems, and other things..

Those guys who have that much sex a day with the same girl are not actually having sex, that's a type of abuse. If you disagree, then how are any of these men different to me..are they benefiting from the reproductive value every time or are they short circuiting nature using protection and turning sex into nothing more than just pleasure?

I never said I was endorsing the guy that constantly chases pleasure. Other men are not the ideal place for men to direct his sexual virility.

Quote :

Aggression was mentioned in a sexual context, you said the aggression that comes from "sexual attraction to women".

A lot of that energy that comes from the sexual attraction towards women is naturally destructive. If the heterosexual man cannot control it he enters into a state of madness, often killing himself, killing other men, killing women and rapping women... waging wars, engaging in terrorism all other types of other things...or he can just have sex times a day, maybe that will help him be less destructive.

This has always happened and probably always will.

It has nothing to do with men experimenting with other men.

My comment was directed specifically at you.. But anyways, yes, men who can control themselves will always be able to control those who can't. Women are a means to keep men preoccupied with their sex drive, with the immediate present.

Quote :

You want to pick and choose when sex is about pleasure and when sex is about reproduction, but as long as it's in a heterosexual context then it must be ok...but when the homosexual uses sex in the context of pleasure it's so wrong!..because he can't pass on his genes....c'mon now..

So you don't want to pass on your genes?


I'm not picking and choosing, you're putting words in my mouth. Nor am I trying to make this about being "proud" to be heterosexual. If you want to have sex with men, no one is stopping you. But don't think you've stumbled upon some evolved way of being. Your solution to women is absurd. It seems potentially limiting to confine women to a purely reproductive role, but our extremely emasculated culture is not something to be proud of either.

You've made your position clear. Women have no effect on you (somehow you view this in a positive way) thus you are able to indulge and experiment sexually with men. It's not that homosexuality is immoral, it's that what your describing advocates passivity as a positive value.

Quote :

I mean, lets' be honest. Even women will admit to this.
I've been in a group of men chatting, joking, having a good time, and the moment a female becomes a part of the group, the energy changes.
Suddenly the boyish camaraderie, becomes competitive.
The same comments which were funny before, become hurtful.
All men becomes careful with their language, or what they express with it.
There's no more free expression of ideas.
All of a sudden all is filtered through self-consciousness, referring to current social and cultural standards.

I've experienced this a lot. Men are brainwashed in thinking that only saying certain filtered things will even attract a female. The fear of not filtering is two parts: One, he risks not coming off as attractive. A female is attracted to a male that epitomizes the status quo. Two, he risks going against the status quo, which women unconsciously defend... as well as positioning himself away from other males who are ready and waiting to move against him to appear strong to the females.

perpetualburn wrote:

I've experienced this a lot.   Men are brainwashed in thinking that only saying certain filtered things will even attract a female.  The fear of not filtering is two parts:  One, he risks not coming off as attractive.  A female is attracted to a male that epitomizes the status quo.  Two, he risks going against the status quo, which women unconsciously defend... as well as positioning himself away from other males who are ready and waiting to move against him to appear strong to the females.

No matter what approach is used the point is that the conversation ceases to be open.
Sexual motives invade to turn it into shit.
Ironically, not giving a shit, and just continuing as you would if no female were around, makes all the girls interested...which then makes all the boys turn against you.

Continuing to not give a shit makes you weird, a bit "off," eccentric.
If a few know you from previous times and like you, think you are okay, then they explain your attitude as you having some fun, or using a bit of shock and awe.
All it takes is one girl who is put-off by your comments, and no woman present to put her in her place...to make it all tumble down to mundane babbling.
See ILP.

Perpetualburn wrote:

Quote :

but a real man requires distance.

your masculinity shines with a burning force.

Feminists have tried to convince women that men are inferior,that women can do without them and what to value most is personal power and independence exclusively. Men are the demons and a woman should hold on to her freedom, her own will, her own actions no matter what.

A world without men. Is this truly what a woman wants and more importantly is it really the best place for a woman to be.  Is she a better woman without ties to a husband, a father or a brother?  How successful will she really be when she has to perpetually exert her autonomy and regard men as of no consequence. Can this really enhance her relationships with men and for that matter, her own life.  

I think not, il n'est pas naturel.  Male and female are interdependent and why is this so.  Let us not forget we are all players in the game called life.  

I will do my daughter, my little poppet, a disservice if I teach her to de-value men, as I know it will not be good for her. Never the less, I will teach her to be aware of unhealthy relationships, as there are some scum bags out there. I will teach her not to look to men or anyone else for her source of identity and I will also teach her to respect men, to encourage and speak well of them, and to value and appreciate the contribution that they can make to her life. We need men to be the fathers, brothers, husbands, protectors, providers, and the heroes that  they were meant to be. Being interdependent and having a healthy relationship with a man will surely enrich a woman's life.

Satyr wrote

Quote :

Sex is a method of reproducing, and that is it.
I've come across men who marry and their wife either does not want children or cannot have children, and I wonder:
Why, the fuck, marry, at all?
What's the point?
If companionship is what you want, then men are better suited for that role.
If sexual gratification is what you want, then consider it part of your weekly expenses to hire a prostitute.
Less headaches.
If you want all in one, then...good luck.
Usually sex ruins the intellectual connection, because it inserts in the relationship, emotion, jealousy, that physical aspect.

Fear of loving and a fear of being loved.

For the emotional thinker it all boils down to an automatic response to stimulation.

Any time something confronts such a mind's existential life-raft, it's teddy-bear of dreamy hope, it must find the binary reflection to match the contradiction - to stand against the annulling, emotional backdrop of romantic idealism something equally powerful but distasteful, vile, must be erected, so as to create a source of identification.

The us and them, becomes "those who love and are loved" and "those who do not love and have never experienced love".
Love, floods the brain with such inebriating chemicals...and so when it is exposed it tries to find the culprit in the only thing it can conceptualize, from an emotional standpoint: Hate.
To the simple mind that emotes, only hate can be comprehensible to it.

What confronts its reality?
The opposite of what floods its own: Hate.
What dares ruin the buzz of brain-chemistry, making the world dreadful and dull?
Yes, hate.
Who wakes up the dreamer?
The one who despises the dream.

See, this is why you, dear woman, are typical...and though you want to think of yourself as atypical, or rare, you repeat the same imagery, the same defensiveness, the same emotional content...time, and time again, jut like most every other broad that has ever come to these "intellectual" forums.


Here is where life has taught me well.
Never listen to words spoken, particularly by a female mind - most biological males are becoming feminized so this is a common theme even amongst "males" - but trust in the action. The thought is the expression of an action...the words are the explanation, justification, encapsulation, interpretation of the action taken...and depending on the quality of the mind doing the interpreting and what tools it has been given to do the interpreting, you get a appropriate, and often predictable, result.

Institutionalization, governed by the worship of education as a way of acquiring the tools appropriate to interpreting, is here important in determining how all actions will be interpreted.
Those raised in the same culture, taught in the same schools, infected with the same disease, impregnated with the same ideas and ideals, will repeat the same interpretations, though they may rarely correspond to an activity, over and over again.
Like in cults.
The followers are trained not only what to think but how to respond, defining the thinking, to those detractors who may not agree with their cult's mottoes and motives.

Once you place the words spoken beneath the actions taken, in significance, you begin to see that the world is not really that mystical, at least not the one humans live in and construct.
All order, after all, is a limitation of chaos, randomness, and so it is an increase in simplicity, predictability.
A harmless environment would be a predictable one; fascism communism, Christianity and modernity, try to create their own brand of predictability.
Humans contained within their premises are predictable, in their thinking, their words...but as humans they often contradict these words with actions...this is the only way humans remain interesting.

I'll use an example I often use, because it is direct and easy:
Imagine a parent who tells his child he or she loves him, but then beats him daily, treats him badly, emotionally abuses him...is the word we uses to describe how (s)he relates to the boy more authentic, more trustworthy, or is the action more pure?

My thinking is predictable because I've made every effort to make it ordered, internally cohesive, rational, deferring and referring only to the aesthetic world of experiences, and not to some magical, other plane, a Platonic world of absolute perfection, and unsubstantiated, thing-in-itself, presumed anti-real realities.
I am predictable because I've shared my views, openly, honestly, directly, allowing others to place me within their own contexts and experiential categories...and opening me up to accusations, suppositions, and so on.

But that's fine with me...because I intended nothing else.
My motive was to shatter, or confront, the current (modern), popular, shared lies...the empty words with no content, that sounded nice and were reassuring but that had no substance because they were addictive fabrications; the conceptions with no reference to anything outside the human brain.

Ironically, it has been when I've assumed the role of Satyr and I've become elusive, artistic, indirect, flirtatious, ambiguous, when I've received the most attention.
When I've spoken honestly, logically, simply, using words all could comprehend and relate to, about why sex and race matter, and why I think homosexuality is unfit, or why I consider it a sexual mutation reliant on parasitism, I've only received these emotive, dismissals, this casual, insinuating, bullshit, redirecting, assaults on a personal level.

I always considered philosophy as a discipline which was approachable by all, because reality is accessible to all, though comprehensible on varying levels.
Covering a perspective in linguistic complexity is not required and it indicates a personal insecurity and a desire to impress.
Reality, when it comes to humans, is simple...accepting it is what is difficult.

As Satyr I get banned and I am called vicious, and a bully...as my real self I get pitied, dismissed, patronized.
By far Satyr has the most fun and is the most interesting one...because he does not demystify and reveal...he toys and plays with the other's self-lies, and the others fears, and hopes, without caring if he is liked.
Once you know what cultural paradigm the other is functioning within, you know enough to demystify them as a person. The paradoxes present themselves as the other's contradictions to his and her own ideals and identifications.
Online, I present myself openly...more openly than I do in my "real" life.
Others like to think I should be ashamed about something, and they project this shame upon me, as if they were trying to make me hurt because my honesty has hurt them.
But philosophy, as I understand it, has nothing to do with avoiding hurt, or trying to retain mysticism so as to not lose the enjoyment in the mundane, or to minimize or maximize selectively, and according to our preferences.


I recall, once more Goethe's assault against the biblical filth with this simple phrase:

Goethe wrote:

In the beginning there was the action

With this ubiquitous linguistic obsession on literal interpretations of words, the liberal, post-modern mind reveals its Judeo-Christian roots.
(I call it modern because I refuse to accept how language is contained within academic choke-holds) Where logos becomes reality rather than a description, an ordering of it, we enter in the realm of the simulated simulacrum...the Matrix, the world of artifices, and shallow codes.

But some clarification:
As with everything, no two usages of language and no two linguistic forms are equal.
The motive of the one using a particular language, and the style, also exposes the underlying psychology, and quality of mind.
Even the one using impressive verbosity, or declarative sentences with no substance, cannot help but reveal their nature.

To use language in an effort to reveal, to expose, to know, to understand, stands in contrast to using language to mystify, glorify, protect, shelter.

The woman, above, thinks that fear and love can explain every human activity, because she, and those the is accustomed to, fall within this truth.
They are animalistic, instinctual, forced to exist within emotional reactions, which turn good and evil into love and hate.

I, on the other hand, and some like me, fall outside this world of emotions, as much as I've managed to detach myself form the world of feelings when analyzing and deconstructing the world around me.
I always try to formulate perspectives of the world minus my personal interests and desires.
On a personal level, I've experienced the sensation of love and having a son of my own, I can say that the feeling is deeper and stronger in me today than it was when I was younger.
Do I make this sensation to be more than what it is?
No.
I know exactly what it is and how it comes about and why it is so powerful.

Do I surrender to it?
No...i enjoy it, I appreciate it, and I analyze it from a detached vantage point...making me appreciate it more, because I know what it is more than the average who simply surrender and immerse themselves in it.
It does not have to be magical for me to appreciate.
It is temporal, making it all the more real, and sturdy, because it is not based no the immediate and on my sensations and instinct, but involved my reasoning, my intellect, my higher mind, my cerebral cortex.

Love = Trust (temporal consistency) x Reason (detached analysis) x Habituation (Comfort through contact) x Similarity (self-love, recognition of self in other) - AGAPE

Love = Instinct (sensual stimuli, automated libidinal responses) x Emotion (hope to combat fear) x Trust (temporal consistency) x Difference (mind/body divergence) - EROS

Most forms of love are combinations of the two.

That was an experiment I chose to conduct and which you have more than satisfied by your overly lengthy response (to my purposeful "emotive"  criticism), to use your anger, by attempting to humiliate, which by the way, you use constantly on this Forum. You see your own interests and opinions as the only ones that really matter.

However, your apparent self-confidence is really only the Satyr mask, which hides a self-esteem that is easily destroyed, with your sensitivity to criticism, even if it is very slight. Your belief in your skills in romance as being superior to anybody else's is unconvincing, as you also wish to appear tough minded and less emotional, almost like movement without emotion.

It is as if you need someone to beat you, (flagellation), to stir you from your inflated onesidedness.

reasonvemotion wrote:

That was an experiment I chose to conduct and which you have more than satisfied by your overly lengthy response (to my purposeful "emotive"  criticism), to use your anger, by attempting to humiliate, which by the way, you use constantly on this Forum. You see your own interests and opinions as the only ones that really matter.

Is this anger not another form of 'hate' which Satyr just explained the typical to perceive when it is not its opposite? Is his interests and opinions not the only ones that really matter - to him? Just as mine are to me - however they are formed, whether from the mimicry of judgments from others or my own reasoning.

Quote :

However, your apparent self-confidence is really only the Satyr mask, which hides a self-esteem that is easily destroyed, with your sensitivity to criticism, even if it is very slight. Your belief in your skills in romance as being superior to anybody else's is unconvincing, as you also wish to appear tough minded and less emotional, almost like movement without emotion.

It is as if you need someone to beat you, (flagellation), to stir you from your inflated onesidedness.

I'm not confident or knowledgeable enough to comment on the substance of Satyr's character.

Perhaps this perceived need of a beating is in fact a justification for your anger towards him? The word "need" begs the question of what the beating is needed for. Yes, to "stir" him - control him in some way - to make him behave in a manner more appropriate to your preference. Interesting word, "stir" - to heat up that which is cold, bring a little chaos to the subjected and have them expend some kind of energy. What would you like to stir him for? What value are you getting from that? The "need" appears to be all yours and not his.

A fly feels pride in making a big old horse swish is tail,

I don't know where I've said that I am romantically skillful, but it must have been when you were conniving ways to stir the beast and feel special.

But it is true...I am so content, and detached, that I need someone, something, some retard, an imbecile, to motivate me into responding.
I usually become angry when I consider the filth which is influencing my life with their vote; and what kind of imbeciles are vying for equality.
It's so pathetic, and repulsive, that it pisses me off, to think that I must pretend that they are of my kind.
But, pretend I do, day in and day out...and once in a while I find someone like me.
Such a wonderful sense of discovery when in the mud, in the feces, you catch a glimpse of something shining. At first you are a bit apprehensive, not knowing if it is fools gold or diamonds, but then you wipe off the crap it has been plastered by for an entire lifetime, and you find something precious. Most of the time it is a maggot, feeding no the feces, that catches the light just so, and I am disappointed.

It is another reason I come to these forums, and it is how I used those dens of dimwits.
I needed something real base, hypocritical, delusional to stir me up a bit...because otherwise I'm too nonchalant, too laid back, too "I don't give a shit," to bother.
In time even these simpletons become repetitive and too boring to inspire me.
I make an effort, nonetheless.

It appears I actually failed a test of distinction, then. I've noticed the same thing as reasonvemotion before - the "movement without emotion." I never understood how something could be inspired to move without heat or a "stir." In every action there's a statement, an expression of will - a want. In this, I see clearer now what she talked about. A mask will hide emotional aspects and act as if it were "pure, unadulterated, will." A will without the feminine, emotional, attached to it - it is godlike in its apparent indifference, acting as a sort of shield.

As has been said before, the lesser one moves themselves but in turn causes others to stir more is an aspect of power - to dominate and incorporate others to carry out your will. To not move at all would make you invisible...

Maybe I'll edit to 'finish' this later as things come to me - way too tired right now.

There is no such thing as inertia. This is another word for "perfect,” or omnipotent, omniscient, absolute.
What exists is active, and what is active is lacking.
Conscious emerging unities, we call organisms, or life, sense this lack as need.

Therefore, there are levels of lack, power, completion, order.
The one who is more powerful would indeed tend towards the inert, the less active, because necessity is what makes a conscious emergent unity focus on an object/objective and then move towards it, as a way of fulfilling this lack, it feels as need.
Power is characterized by less need, and so less movement towards an object/objective. The weaker ones are more active, for they need more and this need is more pressing. They are driven to find that fulfilment in otherness, in this projection of an ideal, as an object/objective.
The other becomes essential to tis satisfaction, temporary as it may be.
It is always temporary because what is lacking cannot fulfill an other’s lack.

What is less active is more massive...it has mass, substance; it is a higher form of unity, internal harmony, and so is more self-sufficient – it is enough in itself.
It attracts without intending to. It attracts by the sheer level of order it is characterized by at that particular time and place, and those particular circumstances.
It attracts unintentionally, just by becoming itself, because intention exposes need, and need is a sensation of weakness.
This is why, especially, females despise the needy male.

Like a Black Hole – a near complete singularity which appears to be dropping out of existence – the one of substance, of internal order, sucks everything including light.
On an emotional, intellectual level, the powerful one would be indifferent, and this indifference would be attractive to the one who is more in need, and so less indifferent.
The more indifferent it would be – without intending to be so – all the more this spirit of Becoming, this innate essence, would attract others (males and females) to the degree that they are lesser, or of an inferior grade of order.
This is where we find the lesser male, the boy, the man-child, the stunted male, the homosexual, the underdeveloped male, being attracted by another male.
It is the masculinity, the order, he covets. At first to be a part of it, then to take what it can from it, and then to destroy it as an undesirable challenge to its own Becoming.
The female spirit is always ready and willing to serve and to surrender such an entity; to be taken into its mass, and become a part of tis Becoming.
A child is a representation of this merger.

This is what is meant by "overflowing" excess.
That which exudes abundance, is fed upon, by those who have need, because they lack.
It attracts because it is its nature to produce abundance, and unintentionally.

A rule of thumb: We attract what is beneath us (our level of ordering), or what is beneath our evaluation of ourselves.
This is why there is always an element of dissatisfaction, in the long run, to all relationships.
Here conviction and self-esteem come into play...and if Know Thyself is honest, and precise, then it attracts many but is not attracted to all; it is selective towards what it directs its own will, or need.
It does not surrender to emotion and instinct or circumstance; it uses detached evaluation, analysis, and then proceeds.
This is rational attraction (agape)...and it always has a goal beyond the immediately gratifying.
Consciousness evolved to offer the advantage of efficiency, and so it does not waste time on the temporary, the good enough, the distracting, and the short-term fix.
If we over-evaluate ourselves then what we attract will be disappointed by us; if her under-evaluate ourselves then what we attract will be unsatisfying to us, and we will be disappointed in the long run.

Having said that, we must also keep in mind that all is in Flux and so these evaluations and our assessment of ourselves and the accuracy of these self-judgments will always be changing.
We are constantly changing, and so our relationship to the world will be changing, and how we measure up will also be altering.
This is where finding that more timeless pattern, that core identity becomes crucial.
Do we identify with the ephemeral and immediate, or do we find something more timeless, something that anchors us upon a deeper seabed, and offers us value and self-esteem beyond materialism, hedonism, the temporary fix, and the shallow love/lust at first sight automated, subconscious, responses?
Are our affections directed towards a long term object/objective, or are they emotional fixes that immerse us in mind-numbing, sensation, so as to escape our essence in otherness?
This is why women are always "looking for themselves" in others.
This is why they say that “you must first love yourself before another can love you.”

What is this self-love?
Is it narcissism?
No, for it admits, first and foremost, one's flaws, and goes on from there.
Faked self-esteem, or exaggerated self-love always exposes itself as brash, shallow, and comical.
Self-love is about knowing who you are, to begin with, and then accepting this.
Not settling for it, but improving the self, moving forward, without trying to avoid the past which determined it up to that point. Not flattering yourself, selecting what parts you accept and which to dismiss, but accepting all of it.
Once this self-love is achieved, to whatever degree you can achieve it, you will find that those who have a lesser degree of it will gravitate towards you, and you will not understand why nor do you have to.
At that point you will be becoming indifferent to their adulation because you will love yourself, and the other's affections, and admirations, are secondary to your own; pleasant, entertaining, valuable, yes, but not decisive, nor binding, nor addictive, nor necessary.

And this is why most of those who truly hold a high regard for themselves are loners, by choice.

Slaughtz wrote:

Quote :

Perhaps this perceived need of a beating is in fact a justification for your anger towards him? The word "need" begs the question of what the beating is needed for. Yes, to "stir" him - control him in some way - to make him behave in a manner more appropriate to your preference. Interesting word, "stir" - to heat up that which is cold, bring a little chaos to the subjected and have them expend some kind of energy. What would you like to stir him for? What value are you getting from that? The "need" appears to be all yours and not his.

I stand corrected.  Anger is not the appropriate word, more like rage.
 

When a person stops stroking his ego, OR WORSE, desires to disagree he turns into an emotional vampire which is about as attractive as a banana peel.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

I've been in a group of men chatting, joking, having a good time, and the moment a female becomes a part of the group, the energy changes.
Suddenly the boyish camaraderie, becomes competitive.
The same comments which were funny before, become hurtful.

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

the picture of masculinity, we are not gay, just good friends.  

Yes, yes, you are lashing out, trying to hurt me.

I like it.
It almost makes me feel human.

What I am saying to you is totally devoid of emotional expression or abusive intent.

I am pointing out the obvious.

This was sent to Satyr before he replied today. He challenged me to post it, so I did.

reasonvemotion wrote:

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

the picture of masculinity, we are not gay, just good friends.  

Is this an example of the attitude of the modern woman? They've held their standards to the alpha state and thus every male in comparison (with how much power they have) seems feminine and chatty. Of course, the perception is even more exaggerated, as it seems she's trying to group you in with the feminized male. I heard you mention before that women today feel a kind of wrath towards men - and I forget exactly what that reason was... It seems like she's another example of that, though.

You talked about camaraderie and brotherhood, and yes, there are some feminine and masculine interaction that takes place there. Are there not some feminine factors involved in every interaction - of who is in power and who isn't? Does not every male possess feminine qualities and likewise every female possess masculine?

--off topic begin--

This reminds me of my recent musings on how you distance yourself from the common. By observing it and understanding it, you enable greater control over it. My curiosity is this: Do you have those aspects as a part of you, but "choose" to control them? ('Choosing', often done out of necessity.) Or are you "above" them, those aspects not being a part of your nature whatsoever - just as any human would be able to observe the behavior of chimps to understand them?

This is an important distinction for me, because when I hear you explaining the common (and oh boy do I want to believe I'm not a part of it... A part of the cohesive whole on human nature you've made) I see myself constantly as a part of it and I see you associating with words like "faggot." Of course, right now - I'm not behaving very masculine like to begin with; I'm basically "sucking your dick" by relying on YOUR senses to tell me what's true or isn't - but the fact is I've learned a lot of this "perspective" from you already - and I'm constantly challenging it, trying not to believe it's true - because, perhaps, that's what I've been programmed to do - and so now you're also the most reliable source for me to rely for a third-person perspective on my own bias in approaching this perspective.

Basically, if you're "above" these aspects you describe and deride, then you would essentially be a god of men... But, if you were above them, I don't see why you'd be deriding them, either. So I thought maybe, just maybe, you have all these aspects to yourself, whether you know it or not - but you either 'choose' not to let them control you (or give into them), or you aren't even aware that circumstances made it so whatever you're deriding is an aspect of yourself which you do not allow yourself to be associated with, maintaining that separation with varying degrees of difficulty, depending upon how much that aspect you are tempted by. (Sexual desire being a burden...) Is this just another way for me, the weak, the feminized, to try and "bring you down to my level?" Or is this what you really do - you feel desires similar to everyone else, like you are given cards in poker, and you choose how to play them - control them?

reasonvemotion wrote:

What I am saying to you is totally devoid of emotional expression or abusive intent.

I am pointing out the obvious.

I know sweets.
My latent homosexuality is denied by me, Covered up in all this macho crap.
We all know I'm really homo inside.

Nothing like being penetrated, my sweet, no?
You would know.
Admit it...just between us girls.

Slaughtz wrote:

This was sent to Satyr before he replied today. He challenged me to post it, so I did.
Is this an example of the attitude of the modern woman? They've held their standards to the alpha state and thus every male in comparison (with how much power they have) seems feminine and chatty. Of course, the perception is even more exaggerated, as it seems she's trying to group you in with the feminized male. I heard you mention before that women today feel a kind of wrath towards men - and I forget exactly what that reason was... It seems like she's another example of that, though.

I'm afraid you will find many more like her.

When pussy loses power it lashes out in the only way it can, suing the only weapon it can, within the only context it remains relevant: SEX

You will see that no matter what the topic is, although they avoid the more abstract and prefer the emotional, the topics about social issues and relationships and sexual matters, they will always return it to the personal and to sex.
It can be about any topic, from any vantage point, even an academic more detached point of view, and 9 times out of 10 they will always make sure the issues it lowered to the area where they have some say and their opinions matters.

For example, my atheism, or rejection of the christian version of God, has always been met with these same attacks on me personally
Why do I reject Jesus as a god? No, not on rational, empirical, grounds, but because I FEAR Him, or I HATE Him.
There has to be an emotional angle for rejecting what for these minds is self-evident and so comforting that they cannot imagine living without it.
Say anything about the inequality, disparity in both mind and body between males and females, and what will you get a a response?
A counter argument based on the arguments presented, using reason and empiricism?
No...the same allusions to your fears, your hatred, and then the assault below the belt: Females, and effete males, always go for that part because that's the only thing they understand - it's on their level - and its the only thing their mind can fiction within - the only context where their thinking can makes sense of things and can hold an opinion which is not childish.

Once in a while you'll get one of the more intelligent ones who agree, even if they may not admit it, but need to be excluded - told that this holds true for most, but not for them.
They want to be told this as they act in exactly the same way others do. They want to be excluded despite empirical evidence, and their own behavior...just because it is they....and they are special.
Sam shit with Christians: all si mortal, except man. Man, for some reason, deserves eternity...he is THAT special. Why?
no reason....just because some priest read a Book written by a bunch of monks, claiming to be listening to God, saying so.

I'm telling you, this is all part of the Jude-Christian framework....no matter if it calls itself atheist, or secular, or humanist, or Marxist.

Slaughtz wrote:

You talked about camaraderie and brotherhood, and yes, there are some feminine and masculine interaction that takes place there. Are there not some feminine factors involved in every interaction - of who is in power and who isn't? Does not every male possess feminine qualities and likewise every female possess masculine?

Yes, and once females are not present, that is the promise of reproduction, or sexual release, is excluded from male conversation, then it becomes the usual, competitive, yet not deadly, sport of one-up-manship, where hierarchies are established and accepted.

Slaughtz wrote:

This reminds me of my recent musings on how you distance yourself from the common. By observing it and understanding it, you enable greater control over it. My curiosity is this: Do you have those aspects as a part of you, but "choose" to control them?

speaking only from my own experience, this began when I was 8.
I also see it in my son.
I liked to observe.
These days I call it my obsessive voyeurism.

Slaughtz wrote:

Or are you "above" them, those aspects not being a part of your nature whatsoever - just as any human would be able to observe the behavior of chimps to understand them?

What we see in others, and we recognize, is in us.
This is where Know Thyself becomes crucial.
By being self-conscious, and by admitting what we do and why, we begin to gain an insight in others, and how they are thinking.

Slaughtz wrote:

This is an important distinction for me, because when I hear you explaining the common (and oh boy do I want to believe I'm not a part of it... A part of the cohesive whole on human nature you've made) I see myself constantly as a part of it and I see you associating with words like "faggot." Of course, right now - I'm not behaving very masculine like to begin with; I'm basically "sucking your dick" by relying on YOUR senses to tell me what's true or isn't - but the fact is I've learned a lot of this "perspective" from you already - and I'm constantly challenging it, trying not to believe it's true - because, perhaps, that's what I've been programmed to do - and so now you're also the most reliable source for me to rely for a third-person perspective on my own bias in approaching this perspective.

This is mimetic fertilization....
The Greeks practices ephevophilia, not pedophilia...and it was this admiration of the young boy for the wise old man.

But, why do you think rising above means denying or leaving what you've risen above, behind?
We study chimps and we recognize ourselves in them....but we are also primates, just like them.
Rising above something or someone is not claiming to be absolutely other than.
It is saying: "That is me, but now I am more than just that."

This is why masculine exceeds the feminine, though the feminine is part of all males.
This is why humans exceed primates, or other animals, though man is also an animal.

This is the mind exceeding the body, creating this dichotomy, this separation.
But it can go too far.
The mind cannot detach from the body - the representation of its past - but must dominate it. this is the Hellenic balance, made possible by asceticism.
Not like Judeo-Christian asceticism or others form so it, where the body, the past is rejected, denied....but with the Hellenic asceticism (athleticism), the slow training and acquiring of control - self-control.
And how can you control something?
By knowing it, understanding it as intimately as possible.

How do you control a dog?
By perceiving and analyzing its behavior - by knowing it more than it can ever know itself.
Your Will surpassing its Will.

How do you control a female, or the feminine inside of you first off?
Same thing.

Slaughtz wrote:

Basically, if you're "above" these aspects you describe and deride, then you would essentially be a god of men... But, if you were above them, I don't see why you'd be deriding them, either. So I thought maybe, just maybe, you have all these aspects to yourself, whether you know it or not - but you either 'choose' not to let them control you (or give into them), or you aren't even aware that circumstances made it so whatever you're deriding is an aspect of yourself which you do not allow yourself to be associated with, maintaining that separation with varying degrees of difficulty, depending upon how much that aspect you are tempted by. (Sexual desire being a burden...) Is this just another way for me, the weak, the feminized, to try and "bring you down to my level?" Or is this what you really do - you feel desires similar to everyone else, like you are given cards in poker, and you choose how to play them - control them?

You ask for my motive.
I'll give you one, along the lines of what you are asking:

We live in an age of decay, decadence, where all is overturned....where the female and the male are now being trained to be the same, where idiot and genius are trained to think of themselves as the same, I do my part to put a stop to this psyche or to at least save a few from its seductive lies.

Imagine a world where chimps and humans were trained to behave the same, and then being convinced that they are the same, equal, on the same level.
All I've done, so far, is contradict the bullshit people throw around as if it were so, in forums where minds like mine are ostracized and kept away.

In pseudo-intellectual groups, I expose the regurgitated, academic, second-hand thinking.
In pseudo-civility groups, where all speak politely, though harbor animosity, I unleash vulgarity, impoliteness, forcing them to expose the real shit that is going on underneath all the banter, and innuendos, and backslapping "I love yous".

Shit the word "love" is so overused these days, it's lost all meaning.
All one has to do is allude to love, mention it, and all clap, like mindless seals.
Listen to the music industry's constant productions.
Love this, and love that.

Love reduced to a word, which floods the brain with chemicals...but is never practiced on any profound, rational, level.
"God is Love"..."Love will save the World"..."You are afraid of Love"....all from dolts who cannot define the word not explain how and why it evolved; minds wanting to enjoy the sensation, without having their buzz ruined - love addicts; retards who are afraid - there I used the world - of losing the magic, the mystique, the escape it offers....wanting to lie in fantasy than reality.

Slaughtz wrote:

Quote :

Does not every male possess feminine qualities and likewise every female possess masculine?

Since masculine and feminine elements are united in our human nature, a man can live in the feminine part of himself and a woman in her masculine part. None the less the feminine element in man is only something in the background, as is the masculine element in woman. If one lives out the opposite sex in oneself one is living in one's own background, and one's real individuality suffers.
A man should live as a man and a woman as a woman.  Jung

Be aware, to Satyr, people (men and women alike) are tools for his use in mind games intertwined with power play.

Quote :

Be aware, to Satyr, people (men and women alike) are tools for his use in mind games intertwined with power play.

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

reasonvemotion wrote:

Slaughtz wrote:

Quote :

Does not every male possess feminine qualities and likewise every female possess masculine?

Since masculine and feminine elements are united in our human nature, a man can live in the feminine part of himself and a woman in her masculine part. None the less the feminine element in man is only something in the background, as is the masculine element in woman. If one lives out the opposite sex in oneself one is living in one's own background, and one's real individuality suffers.
A man should live as a man and a woman as a woman.  Jung

And yet, a stunted boy can become a man, whereas a woman cannot.

Both the masculine and feminine energies do participate in each and every one of us, as does chaos and order.
Nature is not about absolutes but about degrees, and genes are about inherited potentials.
Probability is determined in the past. It is a restriction of possibility.

Being born a biological male makes the probability that you will posses certain potentials above an average more likely than if you were born a biological female.

This without factoring in human intervention which protects mutations and blurs the lines of what is probable and what is improbable.
If in this Judeo-Christian, nihilistic, environment, a coupled suffering from Down Syndrome can reproduce their genes, in nature they cannot...or it is highly importable that they can.
See, sweetheart, man creates artificiality, like the idea that race and sex do not matter...or that we are all the same and equal in potential.  

reasonvemotion wrote:

Be aware, to Satyr, people (men and women alike) are tools for his use in mind games intertwined with power play.

Mmmmm ...I do enjoy a motherly figure, full of good intentions, and wise warnings.

Let us suppose you are correct, on this point...how does this contradict my points?
Is the superior evaluation and description of reality negated by the motive of the one exposing it?

Dear, female....if I were unloved, or afraid of love, would this make anything I've said about love untrue?
If I am fat and ugly, does this make everything I've said about fitness and beauty, untrue?

You remind me of Shit-Smear and his idea(l) of me as being being fat, and ugly, as if, this alone, would contradict everything I've said, which he found hurtful and arrogant.
As if Socrates' looks are arguments against his reasoning.

Dearest female...we all have weaknesses and insecurities...but what differentiates us is how we deal with them.
A liberal, or a Christian, telling me I hate someone, and that this explains away my arguments against this someone, or that this erases my positions about this someone, is humorous.
Something I've gotten used to, over the years, as typical of your kind, dear.
When I listen to dim-wits describing some viewpoints as "compensations," with no counter-arguments, or dismissing perspectives as being born in trauma, and characterized by negativity, I wonder if the compensations and traumatic events in their own lives could be used to account for their capitulation for whatever feels-good, and for what unites, dealing with multiplicity, and loves, dealing with the world's indifference, and deflects, and generalizes "appropriately."

I wonder what is more "negative" than denying reality, without trying to deal with it?

People on this forum need a lot and I mean a lot of weed!

Gaylord wrote:

Quote :

Being born a biological male makes the probability that you will posses certain potentials above an average more likely than if you were born a biological female.

and

he loathes women and tends to ignore them to the best of his ability. To Gaylord they are a mixture of hunter and parasite.  

Adam has more of an explosive nature while Eve likes to prolong the encounter. That's not only the case with the act itself but all the courtship as well. Eve likes to tease and tries to hurt Adam while he tries to overpower her.

Today there is less physical struggle during courtship and so it has become a struggle between the minds. Woman enjoys this teasing and inflicting of pain. But that's just what I've heard through the grapevine. Women will know that best themselves.

Anfang wrote:

Quote :

Women will know that best themselves.

Thank you Anfang.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Gaylord wrote:

Quote :

Being born a biological male makes the probability that you will posses certain potentials above an average more likely than if you were born a biological female.

and

he loathes women and tends to ignore them to the best of his ability. To Gaylord they are a mixture of hunter and parasite.   

I prefer the term "faggot."
Gaylord, contains the word "lord" which is a bit pretentious.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Quote :

Women will know that best themselves.

Thank you Anfang.  

Every 'arrow' counts... even if it's 'just' endearing.
Good hunting!

A feminist decon...

Quote :

"(a) Males are (biologically) expendable; and
(b) Males are preadapted as hunters to be warriors.
(c) Males are 'aggressive' by nature, and therefore (predisposed to) wage war.

These, and similar, propositions are not so much false or trivial - in fact, they are not -, but they're just begging the question. Male expendability and predatory preadaptations may have been necessary conditions, they can in no way be regarded as sufficient explanation."...

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