Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 The meta-physics of weight lifting.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Primal Rage



Gender: Male Gemini Posts: 505
Join date: 2013-09-20
Age: 22
Location: USA

PostSubject: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:32 pm

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.

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


“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


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

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!

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

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 8:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion



Gender: Female Posts: 479
Join date: 2013-01-09
Location: The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:20 pm

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).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Primal Rage



Gender: Male Gemini Posts: 505
Join date: 2013-09-20
Age: 22
Location: USA

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:38 pm

Thanks, Reasonvemotion. How very motherly of you Very Happy 

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:09 pm

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.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Primal Rage



Gender: Male Gemini Posts: 505
Join date: 2013-09-20
Age: 22
Location: USA

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:27 pm

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?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:30 pm

Primal Rage wrote:
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.

I weighed 210 lbs, at the time.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Primal Rage



Gender: Male Gemini Posts: 505
Join date: 2013-09-20
Age: 22
Location: USA

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:37 pm

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?

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:40 pm

Primal Rage wrote:
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.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Primal Rage



Gender: Male Gemini Posts: 505
Join date: 2013-09-20
Age: 22
Location: USA

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:49 pm

Satyr wrote: "I always tried to balance strength with cardio and intellectual working out.
I never liked the refrigerator look. "

Same here in regards to the intellectual weight lifting. I'm trying master myself physically and intellectually.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:55 am

(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:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion



Gender: Female Posts: 479
Join date: 2013-01-09
Location: The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:57 am

PR

Is that you? If so, what a beautiful man you are!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:09 am

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.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:31 am

Hello, Satyr.

S wrote:
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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Recidivist



Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 367
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 38
Location: Exile

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:56 am

Satyr 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.
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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:03 am

Love is pathetic and hypocritical?

This is certainly the foundation for a healthy life.

What do you live for?

For me, love is valuable intrinsically. It is not a means of survival, but the reason for survival.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva


Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 1100
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 27
Location: Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:17 am

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
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:23 am

apaosha wrote:
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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:24 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
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.
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
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Recidivist



Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 367
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 38
Location: Exile

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:52 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
What do you live for?
I exist, not for any thing.

Quote :
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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang



Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 545
Join date: 2013-01-23
Age: 30
Location: CET

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:52 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
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.

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



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.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:17 am

S wrote:
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 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:25 am

Recidivist wrote:
I exist, not for any thing.
But it's fear that keeps you here?

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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:32 am

Anfang wrote:
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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:38 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
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
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva


Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 1100
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 27
Location: Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:38 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
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
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:39 am

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

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:51 am

I'm going to sleep. I'll reply later.

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.

But, I see through you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Primal Rage



Gender: Male Gemini Posts: 505
Join date: 2013-09-20
Age: 22
Location: USA

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:04 am

To Reasonvemotion,

Yes, that is me in the profile picture, and thank you for the compliment Wink


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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang



Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 545
Join date: 2013-01-23
Age: 30
Location: CET

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:39 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood



Gender: Male Posts: 404
Join date: 2013-09-08
Location: Sweden

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:07 pm

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?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Recidivist



Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 367
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 38
Location: Exile

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:00 am

Joe Schmoe wrote:
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.
It is not surprising to me that you were suicidal, as you are one who is given over entireley to emotions, one who is controlled and dominated by them. Emotions are not the bedrock of the universe, but only an evolutionary development of biological organisms. They serve a purpose that the rational mind can unlock, much the same way it has discovered certain physical laws using mathematics and the scientific method.

You will continue to live in nihilistic misery and despair until you can overcome these feelings that dominate your life, just like a heroin junkie cannot give up his next fix, is dependent upon the fake euphoria the high gives him because drug free reality (himself) is so unbearable.

But also many live at the bottom of the sea, in darkness, without eyes, without knowledge. There are no guarantees that one should expect anything else.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang



Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 545
Join date: 2013-01-23
Age: 30
Location: CET

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:28 am

There will be blood wrote:
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?
I'd have switched the word tragedy for drama and placed tragedy somewhere between drama and comedy. Mr. Potter had his mind blown.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:30 pm

S wrote:
Read my positions before you make such self-flattering declarative statements.
I came into this thread to tell Primal of my experiences, and the lessons that I've taken from them.

You replied to the content of my post, saying that I was indirectly/directly promoting nihilism, self-denial and disillusionment.

Then you have the nerve to accuse me of trying to start a war, of desiring to win. In my initial post, I am offering a perspective, that is all.

I insulted no one. I showed respect to all. Therefore, it is not I who has displayed a will to win, to shoot down, to attack, but rather YOU, who has displayed these signs.

PrimalRage ought have the opportunity to decide for himself the integrity of my position, without you needlessly running in waving your sword.

Since you're the one addressing the content I posted, I am not obligated to know all you've said in the past. All I reasonably ought be aware of, is your responses directly to me.

S wrote:
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 was tired, so I was skimming what you wrote and assumed you were actually trying to talk about people, instead of referencing unconscious organisms as a guide to how a human being operates and ought operate.

But I digress.

The organisms didn't actively seek to create protection. They evolved protection because those with protection weren't eaten. It was the luck of the draw who was protected and who wasn't.  They had no intent, and were on autopilot.

Now, back to human beings, which you were abstractly trying to justify the actions of.

We are the apex predator. We aren't threatened by other animals. We are only threatened by ourselves. Since we can communicate with each other, and can find common ground, we can RATIONALLY and LOGICALLY devise strategies as to how to most effectively interact with each other.

As Bill Hicks said in his speech, our governments devote huge amount of energy and resources into their armies / defense forces. This is also a very common practice for individual people, to devote large amounts of their energy into defense.

When one is in defense, every other aspect of their lives, is affected by the individual's will to be alert of danger so one can employ their defense strategies when deemed necessary.

Ideally, this isn't how we want to focus our energy. If we didn't have to defend ourselves, our energy and time would be freed up to do things we value intrinsically. Therefore, to seek compromise and co-operation with those around you, is designed to maximize returns, not sell one's self short for safety.

However, as long as there's still people at war, no one can let their guard down without letting in the chance of being set upon by those still in the war mentality.

This is why the first step in going towards an environment where war is not necessary, is to overcome the source inspiration for heading to war - Fear.


S wrote:
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.  
Where did you do this?

You said love is an antidote to fear.

Since we both agree that love leads to having children, your argument is that fear would hinder this process, therefore, love arose to counteract fear, so we would have children.

Hypothetically, if I have no fear, and no love, would I be motivated to have children? Your argument appears to say yes. That love doesn't produce anything independant from countering fear. What I don't see, is how lack of fear leads to having children.

The same goes for creativity and invention. The greatest inventors were inspired by their own love for invention. Yet your argument would say, as long as a man isn't afraid, he will invent. Which is to say, love has no function beyond it's relation to fear. That is hasn't it's own independent functions that would still be required had fear not existed.

I'm not afraid of eating grass, I also don't have a motive to eat grass, but I'll do it because I'm not afraid. - ???

How is love a reaction of fear? I'd like you to explain, without referencing organisms that don't feel emotions.

S wrote:
Circular reasoning. bravo!!!
Love is because of love.
Love preserves love. That's it's nature.

Is not your argument that fear preserves fear?

Live with fear in your heart so you wont get raped by your environment, so you can live another day in fear.

S wrote:
To have a choice, you must first exclude.
If you are an open sewer there is no choice.
There is no choice. All one does is react.

Quote :
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.
This enclasing is a reaction to the past, and the past was neutral.

Ordering is an embrace of order. For the sake of one's intrinsic value in order.

S wrote:
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.
You're describing your own perception of reality, that does not mean it's accurate. Your emotions affect your vision. You describe in terms of rejection of entropy. Reality doesn't reject. Reality is neutral. You aren't neutral, that's why you reject and percieve rejection.

S wrote:
Whatever.
You win, I concede.
I am wrong.
Move on.
I reference the beginning of this post.

S wrote:
I'm sure.
You're defensive.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:35 pm

Recidivist wrote:
It is not surprising to me that you were suicidal, as you are one who is given over entireley to emotions, one who is controlled and dominated by them. Emotions are not the bedrock of the universe, but only an evolutionary development of biological organisms. They serve a purpose that the rational mind can unlock, much the same way it has discovered certain physical laws using mathematics and the scientific method.

You will continue to live in nihilistic misery and despair until you can overcome these feelings that dominate your life, just like a heroin junkie cannot give up his next fix, is dependent upon the fake euphoria the high gives him because drug free reality (himself) is so unbearable.

But also many live at the bottom of the sea, in darkness, without eyes, without knowledge. There are no guarantees that one should expect anything else.
A post from ILP:

JS wrote:

My interpretation of the heart/mind concepts is that the heart is the driving force behind all acts, and the mind is a tool that is used to filter, prioritize and organize the drives, then to devise strategies to adequately satisfy those drives.

To reject the heart, is to render the mind completely redundant. For to lose motivation, leaves the brain with nothing to process.

To reject the mind, is to leave the heart desiring and hungering for things, which can hardly be attained without the mind. The only satisfaction of hungers will be a product of sheer luck.

I say both ought be embraced, but if one's got priority, definitely the heart in my book. At least you can fluke satisfaction and warmth with the heart, as opposed to the empty unheated home of the mind.
I was suicidal because I rejected emotions. I viewed life as constant struggle and an addiction and had no reason to subject myself to pain.

Had I not had a found something of value in life, I intended to kill myself. This is far more honest than living a half life which I perceive those who live in fear are doing, just as I did.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:43 pm

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


-----------------------

Stress as a method of increasing strength:

Habituation with stress either kills you or forces you to adapt, to grow stronger.
Weightlifting is an artificially induced stress level placing the body in a state of stress.
Repeating the practice forces the muscle to break and then to heal, increasing in mass in the process.

The opposite would result in atrophy.
The standard being gravity on this planet, which maintains an average for the species.
Less stress reduces the strength of the muscle.
For instance consecutive bed-rest or going into a zero gravity environment for a prolonged period of time.
This comfortable less stressful situation atrophies the muscles.

Same goes for the brain.
'You don't use it you lose it' applies.
More sheltering environments less challenging ones atrophy the brain.  
Reduction in habituation also makes it more difficult to deal with what was more easily dealt with.

----------------------------

In the previous we find the reason why the nihilistic perspective that all is a matter of perspective fails - the idea that it's all a matter of taste, of words, of angle.

The division between POSITIVE and NEGATIVE is quire simple, yet profound:
That which requires no effort to come about is negative; that which requires constant effort to come about and then to preserve itself is considered positive.

Light, Heat, Life, Order, Consciousness all require energy, something to be consumed.
Dark, Cold, Lifeless, Change, Unconsciousness, Chaos all require no effort. They come about without intervention and without any effort being required.

Consider this in relation to the thread's topic:
Atrophy requires nothing more than inertia, not doing anything, an absence of stress.
Lie down, if you can, for months and see yourself deteriorate without you doing a thing.

Why?
Because change, the towards entropy, towards increasing randomness, chaos, is the status quo.
The resistance to change, which is what life is, this self-organizing - ordering - requires constant energy, effort, and this requires the assimilation, of energies, so as to nourish or increase the energies necessary to resist, to order.

As I've said before, we may assume that the condition of increasing entropy is regional, or what we are aware of, but this still does not explain how life would be possible, in a towards decreasing entropy, for then ordering would be superfluous.
Life is only possible as a resistance to chaos, to entropy, because it is a "positive", energy consuming, ordering within the disordering.

So called progressives are really metaphysical conservatives as they seek to preserve what occurs normally: change.
This is accompanied by a secret hope that change will alter the circumstances and so result in a Utopia, an existence they can tolerate.

In fact strength, power, is not only ephemeral and incomplete - ending itself to Jewish cynicism and comedy - but it is a measure of weakness.
Strength measures the organisms tolerance of reality, of temporarily, of change - it's ability to resist.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva


Gender: Male Virgo Posts: 1100
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 27
Location: Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:35 pm

An actual genuine christian. Wow.

There's a spectrum being drawn here between love and fear, both passive, reactive emotions, as they represent a response to the other, an imposition on the self from the other rather than an imposition of the self upon the other, which would be an active, aggressive gesture/movement, a seizing, dominating, possessing of the other.

Is the Will to impose order fear? It stems from weakness or a lack in that it is presupposed there is by default an absence of order, a natural tendency for a system to degenerate into decay and dissolution.

The premise is that conflict arrives from a fear of conflict and so without fear we consequently have no conflict and then only love. This is rather trite and does not even reference why conflict occurs in the first place, nor how to resolve it.
Aggression can then be characterized as a fear of the other, a reactionary, defensive, passive act of being dominated by another's active, imposing Will.
Here is the first contradiction; the Other is always the active, imposing agent. The Self must be reactive, passive and fearing. Who the originator of conflict is, as an active imposing Will, is left undefined.
It doesn't seem to be the case that the "loving" one is the active approach either, as it is based upon compromise and co-operation and atrophies it's potential by avoiding stressful conflict at every opportunity. The "loving" one seems to be characterized by submission to the other in order to be incorporated into his ordering Will, rather than risk injury by resistance.
It would seem to me that this "loving" approach is as fearful as the apparent alternative offered here. It goes without saying that it is extremely effeminate.

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


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:42 pm

Secular Humanism is Christianity minus God.

I agree with your post.
Also, the issue is a chicken and egg one.

Which emotion had to evolve first, and as a reaction to what?
Emotion does not precede sensation.
Social survival strategies do not precede singular life forms.

Sameness does not preceded divergence.
In fact to perceive sameness requires divergence to have already been in place.
And the perception of sameness requires a higher level of simplification and generalization.
I see something as being alike only because I cannot see detail where the divergence, the difference, would identity one as other than.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Joe Schmoe



Gender: Male Posts: 40
Join date: 2013-09-12
Location: Earth

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:39 am

Satyr,

I agree with your position of stress to promote strength, I've written something similar myself. I can accept your definition of positive and negative, in regards to order. Although I would argue in the past, organisms didn't have the intent to preserve order, it was circumstance, natural selection that promoted order. Those with particular orders, were well suited to their environment.

I would say to you love promotes order. Love can inspire one to assert one's will against that which poses a threat to the continuation of the loved. It needn't be a product of submission, just as fear needn't be, but can be.

To shed light on the similarities among people needn't be an act of ignorance in regards to the distinctions, but rather be an act of illustration of the mutual goals we all share, and if circumstances permitted, we could co operate in achieving these goals together, rather than independently at odds with one another. If there's a circumstance where we needn't fight each other because there's enough of the desired to satisfy all who seek it, then it's rational to find this balance so all can preserve their limited energy so they can in turn devote it to other goals.

I don't intrinsically value sharpening my tools, but it's a means to an end. If I can remove the necessity for the tools, then i'll seek that so I have more time to focus on what I do value.

Also, I love life. If life didn't change from the way it was today, if my will to reflect my inner ideals on the outside reality that we all share resulted in nothing, I'd still have wanted to live this life. I'd still have wanted to be here.

I'm denying the present for hopes of a certain future, I'm in the present growing continually and enjoying that process.

I think I've said all I want to say, and I don't expect for your perception to change, I can't force that, just influence it. Just as you can't force mine to change.

I'll leave it at that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Satyr


Gender: Male Pisces Posts: 5557
Join date: 2009-08-24
Age: 48
Location: Flux

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:00 am

Consider the difference between eros and agape.
I've explored the difference in many places, but some simpletons fail to read, or to understand what is written.

In the above post we see an example of a capitulation after the passion has been exposed to reason.
This specimen now repeats back to me exactly what I've been saying all along: that love is not selfless, but selfish, and that like all emotions it serves a survival purpose, and it is not magical, mystical or some transcendental force.

What this specimen cannot accept is that is follows fear, in evolutionary time, for utilitarian pragmatic reasons which I've gone through in other threads.

Notice, also, how he detaches from this exposure: the "let's agree to disagree" where the perspectives are equated by a uniforming ignorance.
He doesn't address the issue, he skirts by it, using personal angles to imply that all perspectives are equally valid, without having to deal with my reasoning.
How sensation evolved into emotion, and why fear had to come first, because of the sensual factors and how and why senses evolved, he does not want to deal with, All he wants to speak about is the present, the usefulness of love, how gratifying it is to him in the present.
Classic modern mind.

His love underlies all, and is equal to fear, cannot justify itself when one goes back in time.
One wonders how awareness of sameness is possible when divergence is not already in effect.
How does one love what one is not aware of?
How does self-consciousness precede consciousness, and how does consciousness precede life, or a certain level of organization?

Fear, on the other hand, is a reaction to the absence of awareness.
Love required habituation, knowledge of otherness. Fear does not.
 
So, where no certainty is absolute, he can depart, feeling secure that his position is just as possible as any other.
 

--------------------------------


Agape is a rational form of attachment. It is based on lucid awareness of the shared goals.
Eros relies on blindness, on a madness, where the love is purified by making it divine, by absolving it of all motives except unification with the sublime absolute oneness.

Agape know why it loves, and sees in the other every blemish.
Eros must cleanse the other, the loved one, of all blemishes.

Agape is aware of the divergence, the past, and accepts it for the sake of a selfish, interest.
Eros must purify its own selfishness behind ignorance. It must clean the self away, and deify the emotion.

Agape is forced into this position by divergence. The cooperation is strengthened by the recognition of divergence and the awareness of the temporal shared goal.
Eros denies this necessity, so as to make of itself an unmotivated purity.
For the unity to function in the feminine mind it must be irrational, unconscious, instinctive.
To see, to shed light would break the spell.

Nevertheless, with eros the spell is always broken because the ideal can never match, for a long time, the real, in presence.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Ephemeron



Gender: Male Posts: 35
Join date: 2012-09-22
Location: down here

PostSubject: Re: The meta-physics of weight lifting.    Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:49 pm

Primal Rage wrote:


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.
Or rather it is one of the last permitted activities, insofar that it acts as a valve.  Really though it is what our friend, Ted calls a "surrogate activity". It allows you to pursue something that you can have as much control over as possible and this gives you the feeling of some "will to power"

Quote :
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."

Perhaps but it is more likely you are not being truthful, not just with those you are sharing this with but yourself as well.
You do it because you are aware of a lack, a need which you can only answer in what really is an artificial manner.  This need and the subsequent infatuation with filling it, is likely born from the unsatisfactory view we have for ourselves. We find ourselves born weak and so try to give strength to our muscles by repetitive lifting.  This though, does not develop symmetry, and often we compensate one aspect of our lives to correct a deficiency in another.  Weight lifting is incredibly useless and it is a poor substitute to compensate where strength is not naturally developed from real physical labor or activity.

Quote :
What motivates me?
The need to be more than you are which arises when one strives for an ideal.  Here, this ideal you create for yourself is one of immense strength, size perhaps and endurance.  The weightlifter and the hamster in a cage are the same though both striving for activity but not truly living.  

You tell yourself:

"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. "

But look there, you see it.  You are in a cage, whether you are a lion or a hamster is inconsequential, you are in a cage.  Were you out of that cage, a petty thing like lifting weight up and putting it down would seem to you so much a waste of time and energy that you would never think of doing such a thing.  But in a cage, all you have is time, time becomes meaningless when there is no real end to pursue.  To make due for inactivity we invent activities which showcase how active we are.  

Look here, at Satyr, he boasts of his intelligence and consciousness but yet has chained himself to a mouse, how many "posts", how many videos?  What is a post but evidence of a life unspent, does it not represent to the man, a sunset that was missed or a moment lost?  Who can say they have lived, when they have spent so much time on a medium which by its very nature separates man from nature?  Here, everyone can be what they want, I could tell you I lift more than you, I am this or that, and how would you know otherwise?  Here everyone is what they idealize themselves to be, they can create a whole persona, they can invent prestige and this gives them a little bit of that "will to power" but it is a surrogate, a cheap substitute.  Do not surrender to a false sense of community. What is good you ask? To create and to forge, to distribute energy towards a creative or destructive end.  The sculptor develops his muscles to one end- to transfer a blow of the mallet to the chisel.  He has a definite aim in sight, a vision and blow by blow, chip by chip falls away revealing that vision.  That is life, that is the way out of nihilism, flee from this web that gives you a false sense of achievement.  In nature everything is used up, nothing excess remains, a man ought to be busy enough that he has no time to devote to strength training, his life itself should be his exercise and sport.  Take the character, Wolf Larson, from Jack London's novel, "The Sea Wolf", here is a man which developed himself and his body to a purpose not arbitrarily but out of necessity and his life's activity.  Lifting weight up and down so that you may lift more weight up and down is the most absurd thing.  Lift instead the gang ropes and pulleys of heavy machinery, lift instead the weight of steel cargos and sledgehammers. If you want strength get it primarily through an active life.

Quote :
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.
Life is a struggle against time, in Nature nothing struggles and nothing is at war because time and life are both eternal, only the man isolated from nature and eternity imagines the world to be a battlefield.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 

The meta-physics of weight lifting.

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 Similar topics

-
» 22 min DoA (new current meta record)
» Thermal Physics by Schroeder - Solutions
» HOAGLAND's MARS U.N. BRIEFING: Hyper Dimensional ET Physics Exposed
» Physics A-Level June 2002 A-Level and Past Paper and Mark Scheme Pack
» Weight lifting/workout advice

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