Weight lifting is my life. It is not simply some lackadaisical hobby that I do on my spare time. It is a way of life, my life.
Many seem to think that it is something that only dumb brutes do. And others, like myself, view it as a metaphor for life itself. Life is resistance, domination, overcoming, conquest, and a becoming. It is filled with suffering and pleasures. The weight lifting gym is just that as well.
This is why I resonate with the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche so much. I believe that he would take kindly to modern powerlifters and strongmen as they represent the will to power in a conspicuous fashion.
“What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.” - Nietzsche
The above quote is, precisely, what happens when I overcome and dominate the weights in the gym. At first, there is much suffering and resistance. The force of gravity is my eternal foe. When I overcome the force, a feeling of euphoric rage ( happiness ) overwhelms my body and mind. It is the feeling of power, the will to power.
I am always seeking to gain more power, to add more weight to the barbell. There is no absolute limit. I can gain infinite power. In society, we strive to dominate and increase our power just like in the gym. Many do it via monetary systems, social groups, sex, and intellectual activities. We seek to move up the latter of life, to become, to grow, to develop. There are many obstacles in our way and many sufferings, but we push through and conquer, we overcome.
Weight lifting is one of the most masculine activities there is. The masculine, as many of us already know, is characterized by domination and overcoming.
Why do I weight lift? You ask.
I do it because I am seeking to become the strongest version of myself. I love the feeling of power.
What motivates me?
Deep seated, unconscious rage. Before I perform a set of heavy singles on the deadlift, squat, and overhead press, I perform a ritual. I begin by pacing back and forth like a lion in a cage. As I do this, I focus intensely and start growling like a wild animal. I snarl and stare at the barbell - focusing my energies on the overcoming that is to come. I summon dark memories from my childhood, experiences of being bullied, misunderstood, abused, etc. I tap into my primal rage ( hence my username ). I walk up to the barbell and grip it tightly, and then in a burst of explosive rage and power, I press the barbell over my head vehemently. It takes all the energy in my being to overcome the force. I conquer it, staring into the mirror with the barbell over my head and a fierce look in my eyes. Victory! Power! Glory! It is one of the best highs ever.
After the domination of the barbell, the feeling of euphoric rage stays with me for about 5 minutes. It is a very emotionally overwhelming experience; essentially a divine experience. I feel cosmic power in my arms and fists. I want more! I want to exert more force and power!
This is why I don't recommend that people let go of inner anger. This energy can be used for one's transformation into a higher becoming. People always say, " Oh you should let go of anger and make peace!". Fuck that! Be angry, be furious! Dominate these energies and channel them into positive directions.
To conclude, life is a struggle. Nature is a world of war. Weight-lifting is symbolic of this cosmic battle. The gym is my church, my place of communion with cosmic power. I will continue in my endeavors to become the strongest version of myself. This is my life and my meaning.
Last edited by Primal Rage on Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
I did a lot of long distance running and there was always a point, when you pushed yourself to the limit, the psychological effect of exercise, this feeling of euphoria, came over you, (Data also indicates that beta-endorphin and beta-lipotropin activity may be implicated in the euphoric state reported to accompany vigorous exercise of an acute and chronic nature) and it is exactly how you describe it.
I feel so proud of you PR, (despite the fact I do not know you).
The act of endurance, enduring mass: an unconscious object/objective which is slower in tis (inter)activity than the lifter. The athlete imposes his will, his temporal essence, the aggregate energies at his disposal, over what confronts him; as a sheer, mass, resisting his will.
The challenge is to test one’s endurance. Endurance being more effective, in the long run, than explosive power.
----------------
As with all athletic practices the placing of one’s self into a stressful situation which can be avoided, is the practice of choosing the path-of-more-resistance. This is a preparatory discipline, where the mind attempts to gain an advantage, in time, by placing himself in an avoidable stressful situation, exceeding the norm, or that which the other is experiencing.
The strategy involves the assumption that most will choose the path-of-least resistance, r that whatever resistance they choose to place themselves within, purposefully, will not match one’s own. The test is that of will. The one who can impose upon himself, wilfully, a condition easily avoided, and can endure it over time will gain an advantage, in relation to the one who cannot to an equal degree. The organism is accumulating stress resistance, which is another term for strength/power.
To Satyr, I've noticed that endurance and explosive power are two very different forms of testing the will. From my years of boxing, I can say that endurance ( stamina, long-term stuff ) is more difficult than explosive power; the former is, obviously, longer which means extended pain and the latter is, relatively, quick thus, less pain.
The type of weightlifting training I engage in is very functional. It can be used for combat and survival. But I appreciate it as an art in of itself. It's a mystical experience for me.
Did you ever engage in weightlifting in your earlier years, Satyr?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37186 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
To Satyr, I've noticed that endurance and explosive power are two very different forms of testing the will. From my years of boxing, I can say that endurance ( stamina, long-term stuff ) is more difficult than explosive power; the former is, obviously, longer which means extended pain and the latter is, relatively, quick thus, less pain.
The type of weightlifting training I engage in is very functional. It can be used for combat and survival. But I appreciate it as an art in of itself. It's a mystical experience for me.
Did you ever engage in weightlifting in your earlier years, Satyr?
Yes, up until I got married in my late-thirties I was weightlifting 2-3 times a week. I had a physical job so I could not do more. At my peak I was benching 300 lbs and leg-pressing 1000 lbs. then running 3 miles under 30 minutes.
Nice, that's some solid strength right there. I'm getting close to that 300 lbs bench press. I'm doing reps with 245 lbs currently. I don't do much cardio work anymore though as I don't want to lose muscle mass. But I occasionally hit the heavy bag for about 5 minutes to shed excess body fat.
Did you ever experience the euphoria I talked about when you worked out?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37186 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Nice, that's some solid strength right there. I'm getting close to that 300 lbs bench press. I'm doing reps with 245 lbs currently. I don't do much cardio work anymore though as I don't want to lose muscle mass. But I occasionally hit the heavy bag for about 5 minutes to shed excess body fat.
Did you ever experience the euphoria I talked about when you worked out?
Obviously. It's endorphins flooding the brain. A sensation of power. Every cell of your body alive.
I always tried to balance strength with cardio and intellectual working out. I never liked the refrigerator look.
(This is a repost of a recent thread I made at ILP, which is down right now, which is why I'm here)
Exercising does not need to be an act of fear or aggression. When I was a kid, I did Taekwondo. My father recommended that I do it after he found out I'd been frequently fighting at school.
When I did this, without consciously realizing it at the time, I was feeding my fear. I was getting into the cycle of seeing the world as an enemy which I needed to defend myself from.
In the past, the world was dangerous for man. The fear my father went at lengths to instill in me through violence, would have been incredibly valuable. Under the circumstances, my father would have been respected and praised for what he to me.
Shit went wrong because he was training me to fight false enemies. My father suffered from paranoia, and he was training me against his own skewed perception of the world.
I denied his fear, and let myself become an anorexic. Extremely vulnerable. It was punishment for my ignorance. However, my fear never left. No matter how much I denied, suppressed or fought against it, the fear remained. Until I could look at myself, and say, 'You are a valuable, beautiful human being and you deserve to be loved'.
Exercise can be an act of love and respect, for the self. When one is healthy, one is closely attached to life. One can flourish, think clearly, feel strongly, solve problems, enjoy the process of living.
It ought be striven for, if one has good intent for the self. However, the intent is crucial. Love or fear.
----
The above can be applied for health in general, not just exercise. Let me leave you with a video I adore and have been spamming on ILP:
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
The idea that life is a farce is part of the nihilistic perspective. I call it positive-nihilism.
Essentially it proposes the same unity, ego is bad, suffering is to be eliminated, and it adds 'the world is a joke' angle. A grand ploy.
Love is an antidote to fear. So, it is motivated by fear, and is a reaction to fear. Lust/Love begins as a way of numbing the nervous system to enable heterosexual reproduction to occur.
Exercise is an expenditure, sublimation, redirection of nervous energy. It can be athletic, when dealing with the body, or ascetic, when dealing with the mind. Anger, rage, thymos, is not a negative energy, unless it is directed at you, or is extreme. Then, like love, it can become destructive. When funneled towards a creative object/objective it, too, can be creative.
Respect is based on anxiety. We respect what we fear may be taken away from us or that which can take something away from us or deny us something. Love of self, is simply acceptance of what is and everything that made it possible. Respecting self is motivated by the anxiety concerning the possibility of losing this self.
The erotic and thymotic elements mingle, like the feminine and masculine energies mingle within every single one of us.
Essentially exercise is an attempt to collect and consolidate energies by focusing them. It is the act of learning how to direct the aggregate energies at your disposal (discipline) and then with this focus increase them - make them grow.
Hicks was a gritty and brilliant comedian, but in the end he offered a neo-Buddhist, nihilistic, perspective. A comforting disillusionment. A relieving self-denial. A positive negation of the world.
Essentially it proposes the same unity, ego is bad, suffering is to be eliminated, and it adds 'the world is a joke' angle. A grand ploy.
Joke - To make fun of; tease.
Bill Hicks is not teasing life. He has a deep respect for life, as displayed by his will to encourage love for it.
You have misunderstood his implications of word ride.
S wrote:
Love is an antidote to fear. So, it is motivated by fear, and is a reaction to fear. Lust/Love begins as a way of numbing the nervous system to enable heterosexual reproduction to occur.
This presupposes that fear is a true emotion, and that love only came along as a band-aide fix to counteract it. This is not true.
Both emotions stand on equal ground, you respect the integrity of one emotion, yet deny that of another.
Fear is to stop you being eaten. It served it's only limited purpose.
S wrote:
Respect is based on anxiety. We respect what we fear may be taken away from us or that which can take something away from us or deny us something. Love of self, is simply acceptance of what is and everything that made it possible. Respecting self is motivated by the anxiety concerning the possibility of losing this self.
Respect is an act that encourages one to preserve the respected, due to the passion and love one feels for said object.
You strike me as very pessimistic.
S wrote:
Essentially exercise is an attempt to collect and consolidate energies by focusing them. It is the act of learning how to direct the aggregate energies at your disposal (discipline) and then with this focus increase them - make them grow.
I'm fine with this definition.
S wrote:
Hicks was a gritty and brilliant comedian, but in the end he offered a neo-Buddhist, nihilistic, perspective. A comforting disillusionment. A relieving self-denial. A positive negation of the world.
All I see here is that both you and Bill have/had different values, and you dismiss his as being insincere.
That's bad faith, man.
In conclusion:
I'd like to say all acts can be distinguished by their intent. Just as I was trying to say to Primal.
All the acts you've railed against can be used as you describe, but they can also be used as I describe.
I believe your only application of them so far has been in accordance with your description.
-----------
reasonvemotion wrote:
PR
Is that you? If so, what a beautiful man you are!
Primal is a beautiful man, I agree.
Yet, I am not him. Merely a man like a him, or so I believe.
I'll still take that as a half compliment to me, and give you my thanks.
Thanks.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
Hicks was a gritty and brilliant comedian, but in the end he offered a neo-Buddhist, nihilistic, perspective. A comforting disillusionment. A relieving self-denial. A positive negation of the world.
His final message in that video was pathetic and hypocritical.
Once we have disengaged ourselves from the human evolutionary struggle, then it simply becomes a case of sharing out the resources, a socialist brotherhood of man, but one which is contradicted by the all the scientific evidence, by our very existence. It can only be an evasion, an attempt to avoid conflict, to keep the herd in check. Hence Hicks was just another mouthpiece of the liberal establishment.
_________________ “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - - George Orwell
That Hicks retard made me laugh, but not in the intended manner.
He has a sort of naive optimism towards the world... or else a very cynical and deceptive one. Perhaps an antipathy cloaking itself in optimism.
His advice is that the West should completely disarm itself and then use these newly freed resources to supply lesser peoples with what they cannot acquire or develop for themselves - which also exposes the veiled, stupid arrogance of the typical liberal.
He will be fucked, hard, or those who buy into that sort of bullshit will be. Indiscriminate altruism can be an effective memetic weapon as it attaches a positive valuation to self-destructive, self-annuling behaviour and enslaves one to the Other.
It's all about love, maaaan. Don't be a hater, maaaaan. Accept the chains, maaaan.
_________________ "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
His advice is that the West should completely disarm itself and then use these newly freed resources to supply lesser peoples with what they cannot acquire or develop for themselves - which also exposes the veiled, stupid arrogance of the typical liberal.
His advice is that we should live with and in love, instead of with and in fear.
He then gave an alternate environment we could live in. Are we ready for that environment? No, because we're still scared little children.
I will admit we are not ready for such an alternate.
I accuse you, as I've accused Satyr, of arguing in bad faith. You've conveniently ignored the major theme of the speech, and focused on what is effectively a quick afterthought (an alternate environment).
apaosha wrote:
It's all about love, maaaan. Don't be a hater, maaaaan. Accept the chains, maaaan.
This is a concise representation of your disdain for love.
Don't worry though, I already saw it in you.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37186 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Bill Hicks is not teasing life. He has a deep respect for life, as displayed by his will to encourage love for it.
You have misunderstood his implications of word ride.
Or, just maybe, you have. Have you put it within the context of everything else he says?
Joe Schmoe wrote:
This presupposes that fear is a true emotion, and that love only came along as a band-aide fix to counteract it. This is not true.
Actually it is. "True" is a word nihilists, like you, throw around. I prefer "most probably is".
If you are only going to indulge in declarative "no/yes" arguments, then I think I'll ignore you.
My positions on emotions, why they evolved and how. I also explain why I consider anxiety/fear the primary emotion, and lust/love a reaction to it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Joe Schmoe wrote:
Both emotions stand on equal ground, you respect the integrity of one emotion, yet deny that of another.
Where have I denied love anything, dear boy? I've put it into context and reasoned a hypothesis concerning why fear evolves first and all emotions are derivatives of it.
I've demystified the emotion of love, which nihilists like you worship like a Deity. Unlike your kind, trying to avoid reality, fear, accusing others of it, and insinuating that they are free of it, I acknowledge fear, need, all of existence and explain how we all react, deal, cope, with it differently. Your type mystifies emotion, that of love only, so as to make it more potent, as a numbing agent. It's like a religious ceremony where the object of worship is purified of all its worldly elements, to sanctify it, and make it a more powerful mechanism.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
Fear is to stop you being eaten. It served it's only limited purpose.
Exactly! Where have I said otherwise? If you are going to use these ILP tactics here, you best be warned: Here, nobody will protect you from yourself. There, stupidity was nurtured by protecting it. Not here.
Now consider this: Before you grow what do you need to do? In order for there to be the possibility for any action, for thinking, for consciousness, for a choice, one must protect what one already possesses.
One consolidates and fights-off threats constantly. You are doing it right now. If you were not, there would be no excess energy, conscious energy, to direct back at yourself as love ...or any erotic towards. Sameness, or the recognition of it, follows divergence. It does not precede it, unless you wish to project a feel-good absolute unity, a thing, a god, a particle, a being, outside space/time. For a nervous system to evolve, and then develop into a brain which can then evolve emotions, diversion must precede this awareness of sameness, by simplifying/generalizing. I have to be 'other than' before I see how the other is some-what the same.
Those loving, unifiers, and grand consolidators of identity, are governed by anxiety, yet they see it only in others. They see superficial awareness in those who see divergence but not in their own conceptions of oneness, sameness. Fact is, it takes a greater degree, DEGREE, of generalization/simplification, to perceive sameness, and make it into an equal, a clone, an absolute one. The more you perceive, the more differences you become aware of.
Take the sexual categories of woman/man, or the racial categories of Negro, Asian, Caucasian ...these are a lower grade generalization/simplification, than the all-encompassing category of HUMAN!
Joe Schmoe wrote:
Respect is an act that encourages one to preserve the respected, due to the passion and love one feels for said object.
What did I write? Need is the underlying sensation. We love/lust over what feeds our needs.
We respect it because we fear the possibility of it denying itself to us.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
You strike me as very pessimistic.
You strike me as very naive ...and common. To a child any truth about its fantasies would be a negation of his comfort, and he may call it pessimistic, sad or whatever word it vocabulary can connect to its own anxiety in regards to it.
Anyone exposing the truth to a nihilist is a pessimist. For him, this common nihilist, annulling all that cause fear, anxiety, uncertainty, or force upon him integrity, independence, is important. He may call his selfishness, and egotistical motives, ugly, things he has or must overcome, but being told that that is a nihilistic position, would be a sad comment for him.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
All I see here is that both you and Bill have/had different values, and you dismiss his as being insincere.
This is stating the obvious, but it also hints at a favorite pacifier for baby-nihilists: All is perspective. Perspective is imperfect, equally so, or an illusion, parity in delusion ...ergo why not settle for the most comforting one?
Joe Schmoe wrote:
That's bad faith, man.
Know what's bad faith: coming here offering Nicks as a genius commentator, and then assuming that because I reject his positions as naive, nihilistic junk, masking as positive hopeful, spirituality, that my arguments are the equal to his.
i don't just say 'no/yes' like your type, boy. I offer reasons, arguments, and when I can evidence ...like when I used to come to ILP and make your nihilistic clan expose itself real-time, to the world as what they were, rather than what they professed to be, or preferred to think of themselves as.
Up until recently, before the ILP disappearance, Satyr was seen behind every moniker ...like the bogeyman. Now some think the members here are all me, the man behind Satyr. I couldn't write this kind of comedy.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
In conclusion:
I'd like to say all acts can be distinguished by their intent. Just as I was trying to say to Primal.
All the acts you've railed against can be used as you describe, but they can also be used as I describe.
What I describe I can refer to reality, to phenomena. What you describe you refer to emotions, hopes, preferences, communal ideals. We both describe, this is true, so we must be equal, no?
Joe Schmoe wrote:
I believe your only application of them so far has been in accordance with your description.
Yes, and my description does not refer to words, like "no man"..."yes man"...."love is good" ...."it's all a ride, dude'. I offer reasons, reasoning. You call it pessimistic because you prefer to be made to feel good, and describing nature, reality, is not interested, not motivated, by your feelings, boy. Nor mine.
I begin with the perceived, you begin with the projected hoped for, singularity, some oneness, god, the thing, the love underlying all in a benevolent embrace.
Since I'm nearing 50 years old and I've promised myself not to squander what time I have left, as I did before, on nitwits, imbeciles, simpletons, effete boys, narcissistic schizophrenics, and shrill bull-dykes or hysterical females, I will have to abandon this "conversation" up to the point where you actually make a point: a point which is reasoned, well-thought-out and based on perceptions of the world, and not your emotional appeals, your 'yes it is/no it isn't' dichotomies or some declarative statements concerning my "pessimism" or cynicism, or hatred or bitterness, or whatever emotion is useful for you.
My positions are not only public, but they are everywhere on this forum and on many other internet sites. I have defined all the terms I use, and I do not simply state them, feeling their truth.
My positions, in this case, on emotions, are connected to cosmological factors and my definitions of positive/negative. I didn't just invent them. I also explain my positions as to why life is only possible in an entropic environment, a towards chaos (absolute randomness), why need/suffering are the sensations of existing, and then I proceed to argue on my theory concerning emotions and why anxiety must have been the primary emotion. Some dude just dropping by to tell me "no it ain't" or "it's your perspective, but mine is equally valid" or calling me a "pessimist" or a "Nazi" a "hater" or whatever, is an insult on my intellect. My self-respect guides me away from people like you. Once I wasted much energy on trying to find those rare gems within the cesspools where minds like your gathered: like ILP and PhilosophyNow, and other such zombie infested places like that.
No more. I have better things to do with my time. I love myself too much to give of it to anyone. I choose to make my love, my friendship, my loyalty, my compassion valuable, and not a whore's offering.
But there are other members here so please partake.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
For me, love is valuable intrinsically. It is not a means of survival, but the reason for survival.
Of course it is.
Your moniker and your location says everything about you. A standard bearer for the common herd, for the watered down, Judeo-Christian values enshrined in secular liberalism, if you can understand those words.
_________________ “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - - George Orwell
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Bill Hicks is not teasing life. He has a deep respect for life, as displayed by his will to encourage love for it.
Bill Hicks was a very good comedian and because he grew up in Texas, a still quite conservative place at the time, I guess, I can somewhat understand his motivations and what he's trying to rebel against in younger years. But the older he got the more he had given up on himself - giving in to the chaos. Becoming a friend of chaos - not as a means to establishing his own rule after a chaotic phase but as a final act.
That's one of his 'worst' bits on life now - I don't know what kind of 'life' he has respect for but it doesn't seem to be his life or his experience of life.
And about healthy body and exercise - I think that's very important. It's the first frontier and also the last line of defense for taking on the world. I mix strength with cardio myself.
Or, just maybe, you have. Have you put it within the context of everything else he says?
I am not alone.
Bill Hicks endured the ignorance of man, and vented his frustration through comedy.
I see nothing in his work that undermines the speech.
S wrote:
actually it is. If you are only going to indulge in declarative "no/yes" arguments, then I think I'll ignore you.
Emotions
As you conceded, love promotes reproduction. It also inspires protection of self, protection of others and protection all that enable one's well being.
It serves a distinct purpose other than killing fear.
I know you want an easy way out to dismiss me, Satyr.
S wrote:
Where have I denied love anything, dear boy? I've put it into context and reasoned a hypothesis concerning why fear evolves first and all emotions are derivatives of it.
You deny that love has any place beyond overcoming fear.
You would say, 'If I am brave, I need not love'.
Therefore, you have denied the very essence of love, and denied part of yourself.
S wrote:
Exactly! Where have I said otherwise. If you are going to use these ILP tactics here, you best be warned: Here, nobody will protect you from yourself.
I'm saying to you that as love serves it's independent purpose for man, so too does fear serve it's independent purpose.
I see nothing more genuine in fear than I do in love. They are both emotions, created by us, and preserved in us for their practical benefits.
You accuse me of insincerity, 'ILP tactics', yet you don't define tactics.
I feel quite competent to articulate my beliefs to you, and feel no threat being in your 'world'.
S wrote:
Before you grow what do you need to do?
Have a drive to grow. Love.
S wrote:
In order for there to be the possibility for any action, for thinking for consciousness for a choice, one must protect what one already possesses.
No,
In order for there to be a possibility of an action, one must have the capacity for said action and the will to commit said action.
Protection has no place in the scenario, unless the action is to protect.
S wrote:
One consolidates and fights off threats constantly.
One may do this, one may not.
I, for example, wouldn't describe my life as a constant battle against threats. I am accepting of my environment, and intervene at my own discretion.
S wrote:
You are doing it right now. If you were not, there would be no excess energy, conscious energy, to direct back at yourself as love.
I am constantly inspired by my environment, not drained by it.
That's what love does to a man.
S wrote:
Sameness, or the recognition of it, follows divergence. It does not precede it, unless you with to project a feel-good absolute unity, a thing, a god, a particle, a being outside space/time. For a nervous system to evolve, and then develop into a brain which can then evolve emotions diversion must precede this awareness of sameness, by simplifying/generalizing. I have to be 'other than' before I see how the other is some-what the same.
Is this an argument against co-operation?
You don't think we can think independently if we have mutual goals?
That our growth will be stifled?
If so, I've seen no evidence for this. The old adage, two hands are better than one. Likewise, multiple minds focusing on a problem in their own way with the same objective, will not lead to catastrophe or stagnation.
S wrote:
Those loving, unifiers, and grand consolidators of identity, are governed by anxiety, yet they see it only in others.
It seems you believe the ultimate drive in life is fear, therefore you attribute love as an act of fear. I believe love is the ultimate drive in life, therefore I attribute fear as an act of love for the self. The fear protects the self from threats, yet it may remain even as the threats dissipate.
Quote :
They see superficial awareness in those who see divergence but not in their own conceptions of oneness, sameness.
I don't believe fear is superficial.
Yet you portray love as.
S wrote:
We respect it because we fear the possibility of it denying itself to us.
We respect it because we value it intrinsically and want the opportunity to continually indulge in the satisfaction it provides.
S wrote:
Anyone exposing the truth to a nihilist is a pessimist.
Anyone exposing the truth to a fearful pessimist is a naive child who is denial of the true state of existence.
S wrote:
This is stating the obvious, but it also hints at a favorite pacifier for baby-nihilists: All is perspective. Perspective is imperfect, equally so, or an illusion, parity in delusion ...ergo why not settle for the most comforting one?
You don't respect Bill's opinions, Bill respects yours.
You don't love Bill, Bill loves you.
An objective is required to discern rationality and values.
Exchange perspective with one's personal objective/goal/aim. This is the true discerner.
S wrote:
Know what's bad faith: coming here offering Nicks as a genius commentator, and then assuming that because I reject his positions as naive, nihilistic junk, masking as positive hopeful, spirituality, that my arguments are the equal to his.
Diversion more, man.
You know you're arguing in bad faith, therefore, instead of defending your integrity, you simply point fingers back.
Top notch work, man.
The brave, honest Satyr.
S wrote:
i don't just say 'no/yes' like your type, boy. I offer reasons, arguments, and when I can evidence ...like when I used to come to ILP and make your nihilistic clan expose itself real-time, to the world as what they were, rather than what they professed to be, or preferred to think of themselves as.
I offer reasons, you're just not ready to allow my reasons to sink into your frail body, therefore, you deny their existence.
'I am strong and nothing can overcome me!'
S wrote:
What I describe I can refer to reality, to phenomena. What you describe you refer to emotions, hopes, preferences, communal ideals. We both describe, this is true, so we must be equal, no?
Just as you live by fear, I live by love.
I have my reality to validate love's integrity. I also have my reality to know fear's abysmal failings in bringing me satisfaction.
Can you say the same for love?
S wrote:
No more. I have better things to do with my time. I love myself too much to give of it to anyone. I choose to make my love, my friendship, my loyalty, my compassion valuable, and not a whore's offering.
But there are other members here so please partake.
So quick to leave...
Last edited by Joe Schmoe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Under constant threat, constant struggle, constant duress.
Under such circumstances, is not suicide the most rational action?
To overcome the greatest fear, to stand in the face of it and say, 'No'.
Recidivist wrote:
Your moniker and your location says everything about you. A standard bearer for the common herd, for the watered down, Judeo-Christian values enshrined in secular liberalism, if you can understand those words.
I keep this moniker so people from ILP will recognize me. When I joined ILP, I was suicidal and didn't have a high opinion of myself, so I was very honest with what I thought of myself.
Today, I would not describe myself as a schmoe.
As for location, I'm proud to be part of Earth and I see no reason from you to question that pride.
But the older he got the more he had given up on himself - giving in to the chaos.
Behind every cynic, is a failed idealist.
Bill must have believed himself to have failed, or to be powerlessness to change his environment.
When I speak of him, I speak of him in the time of making that speech, and his intent in making that speech.
His future life, isn't of relevance to the topic at hand.
I am here to speak for the topic at hand, not rely on Bill to illustrate that a man is foolproof.
But note, his speech mentions that bringing children into THIS current world is what is to be avoided, and he may be implying that a fathers role is to protect the child, therefore, if a father brings a child into THIS current environment, he has automatically failed his obligation.
If this is the case, what he says is completely aligned with the prior statement that I linked to.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37186 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
As you conceded, love promotes reproduction. It also inspires protection of self, protection of others and protection all that enable one's well being.
It serves a distinct purpose other than killing fear.
I know you want an easy way out to dismiss me, Satyr.
Yea, that's it.
Read my positions before you make such self-flattering declarative statements.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
You deny that love has any place beyond overcoming fear.
You would say, 'If I am brave, I need not love'.
Therefore, you have denied the very essence of love, and denied part of yourself.
You've not read a thing I've written ...or you've not understood a thing.
I do not simply state, I have a reason why I place fear before love. So far nothing on that.
I place love where it belongs. I also explain how lust, based on the evolution of feeding, then results in love and its two forms (Eros, Agape) ...and I explain why love evolved and how it evolved into the parental and then the social binding emotion.
But you can simply make declarations and call me names, and who the fuck cares. Move on, dude. Go find your friends and play.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
I'm saying to you that as love serves it's independent purpose for man, so too does fear serve it's independent purpose.
I see nothing more genuine in fear than I do in love. They are both emotions, created by us, and preserved in us for their practical benefits.
I place it in a context.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
You accuse me of insincerity, 'ILP tactics', yet you don't define tactics.
I feel quite competent to articulate my beliefs to you, and feel no threat being in your 'world'.
Must be because you have so much love in your heart. Funny that before ILP disappeared you were rarely around.
Insincerity begins within yourself, due. Christian lie to themselves, and so when they speak their truth, it is a lie they believe in. In their mind their delusions, based on lies, are honest.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
Have a drive to grow. Love.
Circular reasoning. bravo!!! Love is because of love. No, turd, before you grow, and on a very basic level, the organism consolidates, collects, amasses and protects energies. Imbecile there is no emotion is an organism with no brain or with a primitive nervous system.
In order to reach that level where emoting begins evolution has to take place. A plant does not feel love or hate, unless you, being the girl that you are, project upon otherness what you feel in yourself.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
No,
In order for there to be a possibility of an action, one must have the capacity for said action and the will to commit said action.
Protection has no place in the scenario, unless the action is to protect.
Last try, moron:
To have a choice, you must first exclude. If you are an open sewer there is no choice. You enclose space-time for there to be a will towards anything. This enclosing is a reaction to entropy. Ordering as a rejection of disordering.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
Is this an argument against co-operation?
You don't think we can think independently if we have mutual goals?
That our growth will be stifled?
What? This is going nowhere.
I'm describing, you are emoting. I care not what you desire, what you want, nor do I explore reality with my own preferences in mind as a necessary element of what is.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
It seems you believe the ultimate drive in life is fear, therefore you attribute love as an act of fear. I believe love is the ultimate drive in life, therefore I attribute fear as an act of love for the self. The fear protects the self from threats, yet it may remain even as the threats dissipate.
This is ridiculous. I said I would avoid wasting my time on people like you and here I am. If that's what you understood, then that's what you've understood.
Whatever. You win, I concede. I am wrong. Move on.
Joe Schmoe wrote:
You don't respect Bill's opinions, Bill respects yours.
You don't love Bill, Bill loves you.
I'm sure.
Very Christian. You can spot one a mile away.
Ta, Ta,
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
apaosha Daeva
Gender : Posts : 1849 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 37 Location : Ireland
His advice is that we should live with and in love, instead of with and in fear.
He then gave an alternate environment we could live in. Are we ready for that environment? No, because we're still scared little children.
He reminds me of a christian preacher. Embrace love! Reject fear! In the Lord's name thou shalt be saved! Have you ever seen the movie Donnie Darko? There's a character played by I think Patrick Swayze. Like that guy.
His main point is that the "world" is a ride. In other words, an artifice, a falsity presumably designed to numb and distract. He then urges his audience to reject the world and move towards a more idealized, love-filled blahblahblah.
The nihilism is clear and it would appear that you do not even understand your own prophet.
Quote :
I will admit we are not ready for such an alternate.
How would you suggest we could become more "ready"?
You should first ask yourself why one would wish for an alternate. This line of questioning, if you are honest with yourself, will reveal the underlying nihilism and reality slandering going on here.
Quote :
I accuse you, as I've accused Satyr, of arguing in bad faith. You've conveniently ignored the major theme of the speech, and focused on what is effectively a quick afterthought (an alternate environment).
The people here represent the best, most honest faith you will ever encounter.
Quote :
apaosha wrote:
It's all about love, maaaan. Don't be a hater, maaaaan. Accept the chains, maaaan.
This is a concise representation of your disdain for love.
Don't worry though, I already saw it in you.
That you associate the word "love" with what I described in my last post is disgusting.
I discriminate in what I love; I see myself in the other. My love becomes a validation of self. I am not a whore.
Quote :
You don't respect Bill's opinions, Bill respects yours.
You don't love Bill, Bill loves you.
Substitute Bill for God. It all becomes clear.
You are probably a secular humanist, the inheritor of Christianity.
_________________ "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
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37186 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
But just on the note of ILP, and why I was never around.
You haven't the will to help yourself, therefore, I'm simply sharpening my blades on the complete failures of fear so it's easier to unbound those who aren't completely engulfed.
Whilst at ILP, I make effort to give people information that I have used to my own benefit, just as I was doing when you plodded along with the goal to instill fear in me.
Yes, that is me in the profile picture, and thank you for the compliment
Now in regards to Bill Hicks, I used to watch clips of him often when I was into Eastern mysticism. He emanates a certain aura of Advaita Vedanta, i.e., we are all one, the universe is an illusion, we are the Brahman ( God ), etc. But, of course, this is mistaken and nihilistic. In a certain sense, life is a joke, that is to say, it is absurd; a bunch of primates in jeans and dress shirts running around like ants to be productive on some whirling mass called " Earth " and most of us don't even bother to stop and contemplate the profundity and oddity of existence. It's almost like a cosmic joke.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
But note, his speech mentions that bringing children into THIS current world is what is to be avoided, and he may be implying that a fathers role is to protect the child, therefore, if a father brings a child into THIS current environment, he has automatically failed his obligation.
His obligation... would be to bring children only into a Nirvana of sorts? So his child doesn't have to suffer?
Maybe the child wants to experience suffering. I am serious. When you train your body and you become stronger there will be a time when you eventually cut back for a time, for some reason, some distraction. Then some-one will experience that detoriation of his strength and try his best to get back on track or slow down the natural decay with age. The experience of overcoming can be an important part for certain types of psychologies. A part of their-selves.
But... I guess, people who want to spare their children from all kinds of suffering more often than not would bring forth children who have their parents psychological disposition.
***
That made me just think that during WW1 and 2, the industrialized warfare, a lot of very brave men died while probably the more cowardly men survived.
I mean, fierceness, bravery and so on can enhance the survivability in pre-industrialized warfare. If you flinch in a swordfight, or let fear overwhelm you, then you've already lost - but in the meat grinder of WW 1 and 2 it was probably advantageous to rather keep the head down.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think. The world plenty interesting, but once you equate any sort of value onto things the game gets quite bland. Love and fear are just over attachments. The trick, Mr. Potter, is not minding it hurts. Ya dig?
