The age of high hedonism, materialism and dandyism is coming to an end.
In the future, many, as in at least a significant minority of men, will only do what's absolutely necessary in order to survive.
Other than that, they will not stress themselves, they will spend their lives engaging in inexpensive hobbies and interests, like what we're doing here/now, or doing fuck all, meditating.
As a result, the economy will decline... and that's a good thing, the environment needs to make a recovery, or it'll be lost forever.
Not only that, but our minds/bodies need to recover, from decades, centuries of collective abuse. There's no more frontiers, other than the internet.
The white birthrate is right where it should be, at 1-2 per person. We've reached the population threshold, any higher would mean the extinction of many higher lifeforms on earth, including homo sapien. Not only that, but there's too much crowding. Do we really need to populate our cities more than they already are? Which brings me to my next point, we should do away with immigration. Nonwhites that've been here for centuries or decades should be allowed to live, but recent arrivals should either be shot on sight, or shipped back to their respective countries of origin, or who cares, ship them all to Israel for all I care, just get rid of them. Whites shouldn't have to share the wealth and resources our ancestors fought and died for with these swine and vermin.
A man can live off 1000 dollars Canadian a month or less, if he's thrifty. This idea that a man NEEDS to save, or spend several 1000 dollars a month in order to live, or live well, is a lie. The only reason the middle class+ are happier on average, is because of envy, some of us are envious of them. If we use 100 times more energy than primitives, we should be 100 times happier and healthier, right? But we're not, in fact, in many respects, scientific studies indicate we're at least no happier than primitives. You could say it's because our corporate masters have convinced us into thinking we need this and that, and you'd be partly right, but they themselves have been duped, so you can't blame all of it on them. If the economy collapses, because most of our jobs run on producing crap no one needs or really wants, then fuck it, we'll demand full employment + a decrease in the work hours, an increase in wages, and we'll just start amputating heads until we get it. If this sounds like an unlikely scenario, then fuck humanity, i'm not playing ball.
A man can live till he's a century year old in an apartment, just as easily as he can in a house, so the value of owning a home, especially two or three homes, or two or three vehicles, is illusory, so why kill yourself over it? I say, if you enjoy doing what you do, and you make loads of money, do it, but otherwise, fuck it, why kill yourself, working 9 to 5 unless absolutely necessary, like if you got 5 kids to feed? Myself, I get by on the internet/library alone, that's all I require, and good food/exercise. Of course, I'm a wee bit more intelligent than most, most men are more sensory than me, but even still, I think many of them are working themselves to death because they're told they can't do without so and so, or they're no good unless they're productive. All these things, from expensive food and drugs to automobiles, come with costs beyond the monetary, they ain't what they're all cracked up to be. Everything in our world has a price, all that glitters is not gold, not everything is worth it, much of it isn't.
As for women, either find one that shares your values, or, if there's none of them out there, then fuck it, either stay/go celibate, find a nice slut/whore, or rape one, if all else fails, it's your call.
The age of high hedonism, materialism and dandyism is coming to an end.
In the future, many, as in at least a significant minority of men, will only do what's absolutely necessary in order to survive.
Other than that, they will not stress themselves, they will spend their lives engaging in inexpensive hobbies and interests, like what we're doing here/now, or doing fuck all, meditating.
As a result, the economy will decline... and that's a good thing, the environment needs to make a recovery, or it'll be lost forever.
Not only that, but our minds/bodies need to recover, from decades, centuries of collective abuse. There's no more frontiers, other than the internet.
The white birthrate is right where it should be, at 1-2 per person. We've reached the population threshold, any higher would mean the extinction of many higher lifeforms on earth, including homo sapien. Not only that, but there's too much crowding. Do we really need to populate our cities more than they already are? Which brings me to my next point, we should do away with immigration. Nonwhites that've been here for centuries or decades should be allowed to live, but recent arrivals should either be shot on sight, or shipped back to their respective countries of origin, or who cares, ship them all to Israel for all I care, just get rid of them. Whites shouldn't have to share the wealth and resources our ancestors fought and died for with these swine and vermin.
A man can live off 1000 dollars Canadian a month or less, if he's thrifty. This idea that a man NEEDS to save, or spend several 1000 dollars a month in order to live, or live well, is a lie. The only reason the middle class+ are happier on average, is because of envy, some of us are envious of them. If we use 100 times more energy than primitives, we should be 100 times happier and healthier, right? But we're not, in fact, in many respects, scientific studies indicate we're at least no happier than primitives. You could say it's because our corporate masters have convinced us into thinking we need this and that, and you'd be partly right, but they themselves have been duped, so you can't blame all of it on them. If the economy collapses, because most of our jobs run on producing crap no one needs or really wants, then fuck it, we'll demand full employment + a decrease in the work hours, an increase in wages, and we'll just start amputating heads until we get it. If this sounds like an unlikely scenario, then fuck humanity, i'm not playing ball.
A man can live till he's a century year old in an apartment, just as easily as he can in a house, so the value of owning a home, especially two or three homes, or two or three vehicles, is illusory, so why kill yourself over it? I say, if you enjoy doing what you do, and you make loads of money, do it, but otherwise, fuck it, why kill yourself, working 9 to 5 unless absolutely necessary, like if you got 5 kids to feed? Myself, I get by on the internet/library alone, that's all I require, and good food/exercise. Of course, I'm a wee bit more intelligent than most, most men are more sensory than me, but even still, I think many of them are working themselves to death because they're told they can't do without so and so, or they're no good unless they're productive. All these things, from expensive food and drugs to automobiles, come with costs beyond the monetary, they ain't what they're all cracked up to be. Everything in our world has a price, all that glitters is not gold, not everything is worth it, much of it isn't.
As for women, either find one that shares your values, or, if there's none of them out there, then fuck it, either stay/go celibate, find a nice slut/whore, or rape one, if all else fails, it's your call.
In the coming future everybody will lose all faith altogether in government and the state.
It will be like the scientific revolution when everybody lost faith in "God" upon further advancement of knowledge. God was dethroned. Government and the state will soon also be dethroned as well.
From this any faith in the state's morals, laws, or ethics will be lost entirely especially after the state fearing for its own survival will kill millions of people in a desperate attempt to retain it. Soon after nobody will believe in government.
The future will be a socially amoral and anarchistic one. Undoubtedly there will be all kinds of tribal infighting everywhere.
I wouldn't place any hope in white Europeans doing anything.
European culture has become collectively a purely materialistic, monetary, and economic one dominantly. It's a mercenary culture.
With modern democracy being everywhere an ethnic minority has no chance of doing anything politically.
You're probably thinking of a violent guerrilla revolt where whites forcibly expel foreigners from their traditional lands but this is also flawed considering that whites collectively don't have the numbers to pull any of that off being that warfare heavily revolves around the side that has the highest number of combatants.
Foreigners of all kinds have numbers in their favor and reproduce more rapidly than white Europeans.
As I said with a majority of whites being purely materialistic or economic most won't even fight anyways beyond a minority of those that will want to. Most are consumed with their petty materialistic and economic lifestyles. Our extinction is pretty much baked into the entire equation where I see no escape or avoiding it under the current existential paradigm.
In the coming future everybody will lose all faith altogether in government and the state.
It will be like the scientific revolution when everybody lost faith in "God" upon further advancement of knowledge. God was dethroned. Government and the state will soon also be dethroned as well.
From this any faith in the state's morals, laws, or ethics will be lost entirely especially after the state fearing for its own survival will kill millions of people in a desperate attempt to retain it. Soon after nobody will believe in government.
The future will be a socially amoral and anarchistic one. Undoubtedly there will be all kinds of tribal infighting everywhere.
I hope so for the sake of myself and mankind.
It is our faith in the corporate state that'll either lead to the extinction of mankind and perhaps even life as we know it, or, alternatively, to the enslavement of mankind, should the new world order be victorious. What we need is more and more people to drop out, dropping out is the first step. This doesn't mean castration/suicide, rather, it just means not playing their game, and playing an alternative. The more individuals do this, the more it'll bring us into conflict with the corporate state. Eventually it'll declare war on these individuals, as the economy, their economy, declines, we'll have to band together in groups in order to preserve our freedom, security, and takeover whatever remains.
Quote :
I wouldn't place any hope in white Europeans doing anything.
European culture has become collectively a purely materialistic, monetary, and economic one dominantly. It's a mercenary culture.
With modern democracy being everywhere an ethnic minority has no chance of doing anything politically.
You're probably thinking of a violent guerrilla revolt where whites forcibly expel foreigners from their traditional lands but this is also flawed considering that whites collectively don't have the numbers to pull any of that off being that warfare heavily revolves around the side that has the highest number of combatants.
Foreigners of all kinds have numbers in their favor and reproduce more rapidly than white Europeans.
As I said with a majority of whites being purely materialistic or economic most won't even fight anyways beyond a minority of those that will want to. Most are consumed with their petty materialistic and economic lifestyles. Our extinction is pretty much baked into the entire equation where I see no escape or avoiding it under the current existential paradigm.
Such things may never come to pass.
The more people begin dropping out the better, however we have to be realistic, only a few might ever challenge the corporate state... so be it, we'll make do with whatever numbers we have. I just know that I'm not participating in my own destruction/domestication any longer, even if I'm the only one, I'll got it alone. A few accomplices would be welcomed.
As long as you're working hard, making "lots" of money, and acquiring females in the conventional manner, or aspiring to, you're playing their game, and the more we play their game, the bigger and stronger the corporate state gets, and the bigger and stronger it gets, the more mankind walks/runs down the path that leads to extinction/enslavement.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
The more people begin dropping out the better, however we have to be realistic, only a few might ever challenge the corporate state... so be it, we'll make do with whatever numbers we have. I just know that I'm not participating in my own destruction/domestication any longer, even if I'm the only one, I'll got it alone. A few accomplices would be welcomed.
How do you aim to challenge the machine with a few accomplices, and what exactly have they "taken away" from you? The destruction of what exactly, would give you what exactly?
Aren't you responsible for perpetuating your own victimhood?
I see reality as it is, but I also see if life isn't experienced as a "welcome" challenge, for the potential it "can" awaken in you or make you aware of it, and the best resistance gives you the best chance of awareness, then you must ask what kind of growth is it that you value?
Living for yourself and surviving for yourself is great, but so would any homo, or any pedo, or any criminal, or any animal, or any creature to preserve itself - without an ideal larger than yourself, how different are you from any of the others standing opposed to modernity for whatever reasons they do? If this distinction is of no value to you, then why even contemplate a philosophical path, instead of just a "rational plan" of living day to day, which technically is what even a house-wife or home-maker would do to organize her domestic stock?
Given low-energy levels, the "practicality" of a rational plan and some anarchci activism is understandable, but as a life path, as a philosophical take on life - it amounts to a depraved hedonism.
How do you aim to challenge the machine with a few accomplices, and what exactly have they "taken away" from you? The destruction of what exactly, would give you what exactly?
I'm already challenging "the machine" on my own, just by withdrawing my participation. I barely produce. Of course the machine can get on just fine without little ol' me, but at least my life will be better for it.
They took away my birthright - freedom (as I see it... I don't believe in absolute human rights), inflated the dollar, taxed me without adequate representation or compensation, and they replaced employees with machines, as opposed to keeping both, reducing their work hours and increasing their pay. Then they forced (well, they didn't actually Force us, but they're partly responsible for creating certain conditions) us to produce all this crap, all these completely unnecessary commodities.
The decline and fall of the corporate state.
Quote :
Aren't you responsible for perpetuating your own victimhood?
I don't see myself as a victim, rather, I see things in terms of cause and effect. If a bully goes around beating up all the kids in school, eventually one of them, or two, or three, will gang up on him and kill him. Now, all that might make it sound like I have a victim mentality, but I don't really, in my mind, it's just a law of nature, you can get away with some things some of the time, but you can't get away with everything all the time, eventually people and nature are going to push back.
Would I have done the same thing if I were in their shoes, in the shoes of the corporate state, maybe, maybe not, i'm not necessarily claiming to be any more "righteous" than them, I'm not sure.
It's not that competition is intrinsically evil, competition is natural, capitalizing on peoples idiocy and indolence is natural, but not wanting to be capitalized is also natural, it's all natural, artifice is just a subcategory of nature. Living beyond ones means is also a part of nature, biting off more than one can chew, and I think that's what the new world order, whether it be fascist, capitalist or even a communist, is doing. Overgrazing lead to the Sahara desert, which used to be fertile and lush, tens of thousands of years ago. Mankind isn't the only species subject to this law or, guideline of nature. It's not that the new world order is inter-subjectively bad because it feeds, but because it overfeeds, and even this overfeeding is not bad per say, it's just that there's repercussions, for it and everyone around it, if it continues doing what it does, uninhibited and unencumbered. Successful hunters do not kill more than they need to live comfortably, or there will be no game left for next year. Successful eaters don't gorge themselves until they barf. The more pie you got, the more everyone wants a piece.
Quote :
I see reality as it is, but I also see if life isn't experienced as a "welcome" challenge, for the potential it "can" awaken in you or make you aware of it, and the best resistance gives you the best chance of awareness, then you must ask what kind of growth is it that you value?
You can choose to endure or "make the most" of suffering if you wish, like you seem to be advocating, or you can choose to flee from suffering, or fight back, like I'm advocating. I don't see any of these attitudes as anymore universal than the others. Different people in different circumstances are free to choose one or all of the above. You see this is all very black and white for me, your ideals. I don't limit myself the way you do.
Quote :
Living for yourself and surviving for yourself is great, but so would any homo, or any pedo, or any criminal, or any animal, or any creature to preserve itself - without an ideal larger than yourself, how different are you from any of the others standing opposed to modernity for whatever reasons they do? If this distinction is of no value to you, then why even contemplate a philosophical path, instead of just a "rational plan" of living day to day, which technically is what even a house-wife or home-maker would do to organize her domestic stock?
I am an animal, so are you, and I have committed crimes in the past. My ideals? I may not have any or need any, or I may be in the process of creating some. if I have any, it would be to live largely in accordance with nature and necessity. Perhaps I'm an agent of those two things... we shall see. I may be willing to die for something larger than myself, again, we shall see. Philosophy needs to be brought down to earth, what good is it if you can never apply it to the everyday? Applied ethics, morals and values, is an important part of philosophy, at the collective and individual levels, just as much as normative and meta-ethics.
Quote :
Given low-energy levels, the "practicality" of a rational plan and some anarchci activism is understandable, but as a life path, as a philosophical take on life - it amounts to a depraved hedonism.
All i'm doing for now, and all I'm calling for now, is nothing, living on the outskirts and on the margins of society is the first step, and even in and of itself, has value, because hard work, in a land without frontiers, doing what someone wants you to do all day long and feeling repressed, is suffering. The machines needs most of us cogs and widgets in order to function, even removing a few of them could result in a meltdown. Once sufficient quantities of people withdraw, it doesn't even have to be a majority, the majority of people are cannon fodder, but a significant and substantial minority, than step two can, and will take place, because the economy runs on our participation, on buying and selling crap. It'll begin to implode, which is good, the decline of the economy is good for me, you, and all of nature is begging for its demise. Step two will be individuals and small groups coming into conflict with the corporate state. Step three will be constructing their own parallel, but largely sustainable corporate and small scale state like structures, even alongside the dinosaur ones.
As I'm writing this, part of me cares, and another part of me doesn't. That's neither bad, nor good, it's just a fact. I'm not aspiring to find value, like I was, or to overlook it, I just don't value anything a whole lot at this point in time. Part of me is just into negative hedonism, pure and simple. It's comforting, to a degree, not to care, not to bother. It feels good to do nothing, or next to it, to minimize stress and turmoil. So much activity is unnecessary and more harmful than helpful in the long run.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Philosophy needs to be brought down to earth, what good is it if you can never apply it to the everyday? Applied ethics, morals and values, is an important part of philosophy, at the collective and individual levels, just as much as normative and meta-ethics.
Philosophy is Inquiry. If you already posit the Ends of How it Must serve you and what gives you comfort and pleasure, that is not philosophy, but doing utilitarian logistics.
We, like most, seeks a pacifier. Being denied one, he despises the parental hand that takes it away - give him one and he will lose himself in your gaze.
Philosophy needs to be brought down to earth, what good is it if you can never apply it to the everyday? Applied ethics, morals and values, is an important part of philosophy, at the collective and individual levels, just as much as normative and meta-ethics.
Philosophy is Inquiry. If you already posit the Ends of How it Must serve you and what gives you comfort and pleasure, that is not philosophy, but doing utilitarian logistics.
Philosophy is a lot of things, perhaps the most important being, love of wisdom, as in, practical knowledge, knowing how to live the good life. I never defined the good life as pleasure or comfort. While I think the good life consists of some pleasure and comfort, I don't that's all it consists of. I never said philosophy must restrict itself to applied ethics, just that applied ethics are an important and often overlooked part of philosophy.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37244 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
How can you "love wisdom" when you abhor any indication of what is not flattering, not immediately gratifying, and not correctable.
The only "wisdom" you seek is the one that can help YOU. Your "love" is selfish. You don't want to know, just to know, but only what gives you aid.
The first presumption here being that the world is positively inclined towards you, your personal interests and life, in general. And this first mistake is what prevents you from finding any lasting "value" in knowledge.
You come to the table with a presupposition as to what the meal should be, and how close to your tastes it must be.
What you should do, is go to Laughingstock's forum, to chow down.
How can you "love wisdom" when you abhor any indication of what is not flattering, not immediately gratifying, and not correctable.
That's not true, there's a lot of things about me, the world, and the relationship between the two, that aren't flattering, some of those things might be able to be corrected, and some of those things might not.
Quote :
The only "wisdom" you seek is the one that can help YOU. Your "love" is selfish. You don't want to know, just to know, but only what gives you aid.
That's simply not true, if you'd paid attention to a word I wrote, you would've known I'm interested in history, science, and all sorts of things that have no direct bearing on my existence, although you could say, everything has an indirect bearing on our existence, somewhere down the line, the earlier, the more likely.
Quote :
The first presumption here being that the world is positively inclined towards you, your personal interests and life, in general. And this first mistake is what prevents you from finding any lasting "value" in knowledge.
That's not true either, while individuals within the cosmos may be for, against or indifferent to my existence, most of the universe, or the universe as a whole, does not care, cannot care. I could die tomorrow, on the other hand, I could live till I'm 90. There are no guarantees, except the eventuality and inevitability of death.
Quote :
You come to the table with a presupposition as to what the meal should be, and how close to your tastes it must be.
Only if I'm paying for it.
Quote :
What you should do, is go to Laughingstock's forum, to chow down.
I'm already there, but I don't chow down, as it were, on everything placed before me. I help myself, selecting some morsels over others. While I'm not against adaptation, nor am I necessarily against dreaming of what could or should be. I think one has to have ones feet firmly planted in the here/now, even while one gazes at the stars. The older I get, the more I realize the preeminence of the former to the latter.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Philosophy needs to be brought down to earth, what good is it if you can never apply it to the everyday? Applied ethics, morals and values, is an important part of philosophy, at the collective and individual levels, just as much as normative and meta-ethics.
Philosophy is Inquiry. If you already posit the Ends of How it Must serve you and what gives you comfort and pleasure, that is not philosophy, but doing utilitarian logistics.
Philosophy is a lot of things, perhaps the most important being, love of wisdom, as in, practical knowledge, knowing how to live the good life. I never defined the good life as pleasure or comfort. While I think the good life consists of some pleasure and comfort, I don't that's all it consists of. I never said philosophy must restrict itself to applied ethics, just that applied ethics are an important and often overlooked part of philosophy.
But you already decided it must serve how to live the good life, irrespective of whatever 'good' entails.
Inquiry and "love of wisdom" ought not to be restricted to the horizon that it MUST serve, it 'must' be utilizable, if we are to call it philosophy in the authentic sense. What you are describing to me is picking up already made philosophical systems and combing and deconstructing and recombining various ideologies to adapt and be profitable or supportive of the kind of life you want to live or value. This is logistics, not philosophy. Philosophy becomes informed by your life instead of the other way. Comes close to the way of the cynics.
Quote :
The elite are decadent, and in turn, debauched and atrophying. By attempting to rob the rich, we're merely averaging decadence, not creating it. However, the major reason our civilization produces so much crap, is not because we want crap, but because it's the only way we can justify our existence to the elite, which is contemplating our destruction. If the cost of living was half or a 4th of what it is, which is where it should be, at the very least, once adjusted for inflation, people wouldn't be forced to work for superfluities, and if they continued working for them, they deserve to be destroyed, like the elite. Maybe what this is about for me, other than attaining a little more for myself, isn't about left or right, but excess, humanity has become excessive, particularly the elites, but if the common people were to become just as excessive, than they too deserve destruction.
This is proliferation like cancer, and robbery is not the solution as it occurs because of Pacifism, which in turn is because of Feminization.
When the aggressive instinct is stunted, thwarted, nihilized, and not let to expend itself masculinely [in the classical sense], it reloops into more productivity and consumption as an ends in itself. [See Baudrrilard's comment after the blue one: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Satyr wrote:
""In the 'Accursed Share', Bataille makes the point, wealth was luxury expressing itself through expenditure. The wealthy man returned the resources back into the economy, back into the system, just like in nature where the dominant male eventually returned himself back into the system he emerged form and then came to dominate.
Bataille remarks current Capitalist system pools resources never completely returning them back into the system. What is returned in the form of luxury and ostentatious symbolism, is not comparable to what is retained. Slowly wealth accumulates to such proportions that no single man, or his entire family, can spend it fast enough to maintain an equilibrium...a natural balance. In nature this return of resources occurs automatically, at the dominant organism's death, or during its lifespan, as there is no way to accumulate and safeguard resources over a certain limit.
In man-made systems the entire structure is dedicated to preserving wealth and privilege, making this pooling of resources for time-spans beyond a single lifetime, depending on the stability of the system and the power of the family.
This is a miserly economic system, as it does not expend its excess energies, but saves them, expending only a small portion of them in luxury and display, or in the practice of maintaining its accumulated wealth (resources). It is an unnatural practice...resulting in sudden release of energies once control can no longer sustain itself - this is Rrevolution."
"As for nihilism is concerned it is a representation of the real. Nature is nihilism.
We negate the artificial and imposed ideals of the world from others to find the natural reality of nihilism.
Reality is a nihilistic one despite the majority of delusional human beings under guises of religion, government, or otherwise desperately trying to say otherwise." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
What LOL says there that you agreed with, is an error.
Nihilism is not a 'thing out there'. Nihilism is "our" relation with the world, with nature. Nature is not nihilistic. The world is not nihilistic. The world is meaningless, it is entropic, and how We make it relate exposes the kind and degree of our nihilism. It is a condition of be-ing. Reality is both our life [order] as well as life at large [entropy - that can be both hypo-order or hyper-order that we can't make sense of, perceive patterns], and how you make the two relate - life and life-at-large, shows the nature of your nihilism. The masculine strives to impose its order and is towards-order [Active nihilism]. The feminine dissolves into uniformity and meaningless and resigns towards-entropy [Passive nihilism].
This is proliferation like cancer, and robbery is not the solution as it occurs because of Pacifism, which in turn is because of Feminization.
When the aggressive instinct is stunted, thwarted, nihilized, and not let to expend itself masculinely [in the classical sense], it reloops into more productivity and consumption as an ends in itself. [See Baudrrilard's comment after the blue one:
I'm going to exchange your word feminine for the word slavish.
Is it more slavish to revolt against the political/economic establishment, in the hopes of either establishing you and yours as masters, or in the hopes of engendering a more equal playing field, or is it more slavish to reform the political/economic establishment, in the hopes of either establishing you and yours as masters, or in the hopes of engendering a more level playing field, or is it more slavish to accept the political/economic establishment, and either attempt to rise within its ranks, or accept your lowly position within its ranks, and make do? While I would need a little context, I'd say the former is intrinsically the least slavish, and the latter is intrinsically the most slavish, of these options.
Should one always do what's masterish, as opposed to slavish? Of course it depends on the person, and the place/time they're living in. I'd say the masterish path is generally fraught with the most risks and rewards, where as the slavish path, is fraught with the least risks and rewards, unless your master rapes you on a daily basis, and has a habit of killing his slaves, in which case fight, or flight, would be the only viable recourses.
See I have a more three dimensional view of things, where each of these options has benefits and detriments, rather than one being absolutely benevolent or malevolent, where as you have a more limited view. The objective is always to achieve balance, averting both excess and deficiency, but balance means different things for different people living in different times/places.
In our era, there's more wealth and resource extraction than ever before, however, conversely, there's more consolidation and monopolization of wealth and resource extraction than ever before, so attempting to improve ones circumstances is both desirable, and not desirable at the same time. For the vast majority, as usual, it's undesirable, only a minority ever strives to significantly and substantially improve their situation, unless circumstances become exceedingly dire.
As you ought to know, I'm not an extrovert, hedonist or materialist, for me, less is often more. What I am into is, freedom, freedom is very important to me, in addition to artistry and intellect, which are relatively cheap. One can attempt to maximize freedom within ones rank, or increase ones rank in society, I have chosen the former, most people choose the latter. For most people it's the opposite, they try to improve their rank within the establishment in order to acquire more crap, where as I try to maximize freedom in the rank I'm in, which is the bottom, from an economic/political standpoint. Why I do this, and why I don't do what they do, when I'm more than able to, is because of the peculiarities of my personality. I am not like most people. In the past, and even now, I have contemplating revolting against, and reforming society, in order to increase my freedom, and improve the lot of myself, and my fellows. Again, most people wouldn't dare dream of such things. Am I slavish, effete? Perhaps, but I don't see it that way, I just see myself as unique, and therefore, what's good for me isn't necessarily good for them or you.
As the political/economy continues to decline, and my situation becomes more dire, I may begin taking rebellion more seriously, but for the present, I'm leaving it on the backburner, I just have to adapt, and make do, work a little more, and attain more independence, sacrificing one kind of freedom, for another.
You see for me, it's all relative, for you, everything is simple, 1 dimensional. That's why I don't do the back and forth with you like you and Joker do, or at least I'd rather avoid it if I can, because unlike both of you, I'm able to see difference, I'm able to see the positives and negatives in everything, and bring it down to earth, where we're at.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
This is proliferation like cancer, and robbery is not the solution as it occurs because of Pacifism, which in turn is because of Feminization.
When the aggressive instinct is stunted, thwarted, nihilized, and not let to expend itself masculinely [in the classical sense], it reloops into more productivity and consumption as an ends in itself. [See Baudrrilard's comment after the blue one:
I'm going to exchange your word feminine for the word slavish.
Is it more slavish to revolt against the political/economic establishment, in the hopes of either establishing you and yours as masters, or in the hopes of engendering a more equal playing field, or is it more slavish to reform the political/economic establishment, in the hopes of either establishing you and yours as masters, or in the hopes of engendering a more level playing field, or is it more slavish to accept the political/economic establishment, and either attempt to rise within its ranks, or accept your lowly position within its ranks, and make do? While I would need a little context, I'd say the former is intrinsically the least slavish, and the latter is intrinsically the most slavish, of these options.
Should one always do what's masterish, as opposed to slavish? Of course it depends on the person, and the place/time they're living in. I'd say the masterish path is generally fraught with the most risks and rewards, where as the slavish path, is fraught with the least risks and rewards, unless your master rapes you on a daily basis, and has a habit of killing his slaves, in which case fight, or flight, would be the only viable recourses.
See I have a more three dimensional view of things, where each of these options has benefits and detriments, rather than one being absolutely benevolent or malevolent, where as you have a more limited view. The objective is always to achieve balance, averting both excess and deficiency, but balance means different things for different people living in different times/places.
You see for me, it's all relative, for you, everything is simple, 1 dimensional. That's why I don't do the back and forth with you like you and Joker do, or at least I'd rather avoid it if I can, because unlike both of you, I'm able to see difference, I'm able to see the positives and negatives in everything, and bring it down to earth, where we're at.
Is there anything more limited than seeing the world divided into masters [of any sort] and slaves [of every sort]?
You think you are more free-thinking, while I see that your way of seeing is already guided by a stirnerism of Oppessor vs. Oppressed, i.e. in terms of power as pure materiality. And when you do that, you are losing value distinctions in the way you slice the world by grouping all masters and all people with power in one header, and all the powerless in the other. All paternalisms and all patriarchies and all paganisms as One sort. Its because I am able to and want to value everything, I'd say the way you are slicing up the world lacks nuance and falls into a simplistic either/or, advantage/disadvantage while losing out on quality. This is what makes you an utilitarian.
Is every advantage honourable? Is every disadvantage dishonourable? Is every benefit worth it?
Satyr is of the lotus in the water kind that rolls the drops off without sticking to it. Knowing who you are and moving in society while disengaging with slave-values whether of the underdogs or the topdogs of those in power is already an inner revolution. He's already said Modernity is moving in two directions - there is a mindless homogenization happening, which is counteracted by a simultaneous memetic splitting based on shared ideals.
You think the system must be defeated by pulling out totally, remove the power that feeds it.
Speaking for myself only, I think building on your heritage, on your values, on your ideals, strengthening the consciousness of the weight and gravity of one's past - when it grows strong enough will erode past all the slavish encrustrations like roots breaking past a wall from underneath and rupturing it. In short - self-focus. Diseases cannot be reasonsed with, only combated with higher states of health.
My responses to you are not in the spirit of convincing you of anything, as I already told you NE is not a "path"; its a spiritual disposition that you either are, or are not.
But you already decided it must serve how to live the good life, irrespective of whatever 'good' entails.
Inquiry and "love of wisdom" ought not to be restricted to the horizon that it MUST serve, it 'must' be utilizable, if we are to call it philosophy in the authentic sense.
It doesn't always have to serve the good life, some of it may be devoted to epistemology, some of it to metaphysics, and some of it to the good life, although I'd say the good life - ethics, morals and values, is essential, it's what most distinguishes it from the sciences, what makes it vital. Additionally, etymologically, it makes sense, and historically, the Greeks considered ethics the meat and potatoes of philosophical inquiry, it's also what we colloquially mean when we use the word.
With the exception of metaphysics,,, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics have something subjective in their aim, namely the truth, the good and the beautiful, logos, ethos and pathos, respectively, and that's what gives philosophy its distinct flavor, rational inquiry into more subjective matters, as opposed to science, which limits itself to the objective. Even in metaphysics, philosophy is more concerned with the conceptualization of things, thinking about how we should think about the world, as opposed to acquiring more information about it via sensation. Philosophy is delving into the subjective, into the mind, or into this ambiguous, nebulous place where the objective and the subjective, where mind and matter collide. Chief among these collisions, is ethics, wisdom.
Quote :
What you are describing to me is picking up already made philosophical systems and combing and deconstructing and recombining various ideologies to adapt and be profitable or supportive of the kind of life you want to live or value. This is logistics, not philosophy. Philosophy becomes informed by your life instead of the other way. Comes close to the way of the cynics.
That's partly true, but it's more back and forth, philosophy also informs, and can change my views on how to live, it's not just an articulation and organization of my means and ends, it can alter my means and ends, by assisting my reevaluation of them. I don't always begin with the kind of life I want to live, and then attempt to justify it philosophically, rationally, sometimes I'm not sure what sort of life I want to lead, or I end up finding out the sort of life I want to lead, may not be the right one, while philosophizing.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
But you already decided it must serve how to live the good life, irrespective of whatever 'good' entails.
Inquiry and "love of wisdom" ought not to be restricted to the horizon that it MUST serve, it 'must' be utilizable, if we are to call it philosophy in the authentic sense.
It doesn't always have to serve the good life, some of it may be devoted to epistemology, some of it to metaphysics, and some of it to the good life, although I'd say the good life - ethics, morals and values, is essential, it's what most distinguishes it from the sciences, what makes it vital. Additionally, etymologically, it makes sense, and historically, the Greeks considered ethics the meat and potatoes of philosophical inquiry, it's also what we colloquially mean when we use the word.
Historically,
Quote :
""The notion that the word philosophy derives from a combination of the words love (philia) and wisdom (sophia) is a very modern reading of the term. The root of philosophy is not eros or desire as we currently understand it, but rather a legal conception of friendship as the contract of belonging to a juridically defined group. The “philoi” or friends were members of a group relationship and consciousness, parties to an institution — a family, a city, a state. Philein or friend referred to a constitutional category, and to the membership of an established order. That philein also meant to kiss was symbolic again of a legal tie, of the kiss of brotherhood or peace (osculum pacis) by which members of the group marked their mutual recognition and faith. For Benveniste, a leading authority on the Indo-European roots of romance languages, the secondary meaning of kissing aptly depicted the way brothers were “made into contracting parties.” The law of wisdom, both constitution and contract, preceded and governed the desire of thought. Behind the figure of the philosopher thus lies the bond of law.
The etymology of philosophy leads more or less directly to legality, to a law of wisdom that precedes and dictates both justice and desire... Law is in that sense a symptom, a text, a mode of transmission of relationships and the affections upon which they depend. It is a question of the archaisms, monuments, and myths that we inherit and inhabit sleepingly, in the mode of retrospect or “backward-looking,” viscerally and perhaps unconsciously in the manner of prescriptions and prohibitions passed on without question from father to son, and perhaps more pertinently for the norms of truth, from mother to child." [Goodrich, Nietzsche and Legal Theory]
Also, I have always associated the pre-occupation with ethics with the Semites, and aesthetics with the I.Es.
Quote :
Philosophy is delving into the subjective, into the mind, or into this ambiguous, nebulous place where the objective and the subjective, where mind and matter collide. Chief among these collisions, is ethics, wisdom.
It is a seeking of wisdom with objective observation of reality in this context; reality as reference and how much of it one can incorporate beyond loss/gain. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Quote :
I don't always begin with the kind of life I want to live, and then attempt to justify it philosophically, rationally, sometimes I'm not sure what sort of life I want to lead, or I end up finding out the sort of life I want to lead, may not be the right one, while philosophizing.
What LOL says there that you agreed with, is an error.
Nihilism is not a 'thing out there'. Nihilism is "our" relation with the world, with nature. Nature is not nihilistic. The world is not nihilistic. The world is meaningless, it is entropic, and how We make it relate exposes the kind and degree of our nihilism. It is a condition of be-ing. Reality is both our life [order] as well as life at large [entropy - that can be both hypo-order or hyper-order that we can't make sense of, perceive patterns], and how you make the two relate - life and life-at-large, shows the nature of your nihilism. The masculine strives to impose its order and is towards-order [Active nihilism]. The feminine dissolves into uniformity and meaningless and resigns towards-entropy [Passive nihilism].
Agreed, strictly speaking, nihilism is a belief about what is or isn't out there, not what is or isn't out there, Joker was using the word liberally, but perhaps not erroneously.
I do not divide life from nonlife as rigidly as you do, for me, there's some overlap between life and nonlife, and I do not equate life with order and nonlife with entropy, life and nonlife both grow and decay, collect and organize their energies, and disperse them, they're cyclical processes.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
What LOL says there that you agreed with, is an error.
Nihilism is not a 'thing out there'. Nihilism is "our" relation with the world, with nature. Nature is not nihilistic. The world is not nihilistic. The world is meaningless, it is entropic, and how We make it relate exposes the kind and degree of our nihilism. It is a condition of be-ing. Reality is both our life [order] as well as life at large [entropy - that can be both hypo-order or hyper-order that we can't make sense of, perceive patterns], and how you make the two relate - life and life-at-large, shows the nature of your nihilism. The masculine strives to impose its order and is towards-order [Active nihilism]. The feminine dissolves into uniformity and meaningless and resigns towards-entropy [Passive nihilism].
Agreed, strictly speaking, nihilism is a belief about what is or isn't out there, not what is or isn't out there, Joker was using the word liberally, but perhaps not erroneously.
I do not divide life from nonlife as rigidly as you do, for me, there's some overlap between life and nonlife, and I do not equate life with order and nonlife with entropy, life and nonlife both grow and decay, collect and organize their energies, and disperse them, they're cyclical processes.
No; not between life and non-life, but between states of (relative)being and becoming - the flow only a different rate of becoming than the flux of the universe.
Satyr wrote:
"Flow is a linear conception of a dynamic (inter)active reality tending towards increasing entropy. Theoretically, to complete the mental model, this flow is not linear, making it possible for multi-dimensional conceptions of reality where the more appropriate term would be Flux. Of course a mental model is a metaphor...attempting to produce understanding. It can only be judged on its merits: How well it references a sensual world...how many details from the world it can incorporate within its premises and postulations...how many of its arguments are based on common experiences with the world.
Flow implies an uninterrupted continuum, merging, converging, conflicting, resiting producing pools of greater or lesser flows, or speeds of flow, swept away by a current veering towards uniformity. The universe is cooling, after all, and "cold" is a term denoting the diminishing of a activity, the decline of energy. Even this more current interpretation of the universe expanding in exponentially greater rates of speed, only signifies a decline in order. For, if order is a resistance, a rarity, in the norm towards entropy then its gradual decline would mean a proportional increase in the movement towards entropy."
For me, nihilism to a greater extent (since it's a negative word), means the Denial of Platonic forms, chief among them, God and the literal soul or spirit, in addition to the denial of magick and miracles,,, and to a lesser extent (again, since it's a negative word), the Affirmation of the empirical, natural, organic world, which I don't describe as activity or entropy per say, but as the indescribable, the unfathomable, or the complex, the varied, the mysterious. If we're to remain rational, the world must precede the thought and language we use to describe it, activity being just another thought/word, and entropy, one more.
Both males and females both strive to preserve and propagate their life force equally, more/less, they differ in their means to that end. I would not equate the latter with death and chaos, or as being less willing/able to sustain its life force, nor would I equate the latter with life and order, the way you do. I equate females with all that is in the hive, and males with all that challenges it, both creatively and destructively, both mimetically and physically, both the people that challenge it from within, and the people that deal with (non)human challenges from without.
Females can almost always be found deep, down in the hive, where it's warm and wet, males, on the periphery, where it's cold and dry, even if they should find themselves on top of the pecking order, spiritually they're nomadic, nihilistic (not in the Nietzschean sense of the word), empirical. Females are more liable to conflate the meme with nature, males, not so much.
Additionally, females are the embodiment, expression, manifestation and personification of all that is emotional and excessive, and men, rational and temperate. All this has to do with the sociosexual specialization we undertook millions of years ago.
Last edited by Divergense on Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Some advice for you in dealing with Satyr and Lyssa, both retards in my opinion...take this advice or leave it. You may not even find it necessary or useful to you, since I've already seen some of your great potential in action before. You ought to overcome both of these numbskulls without difficulty.
Lyssa is a mind-slave of Satyr, and she can't do much other than repeat Satyr's positions which she adopted as her own. So arguing against Lyssa essentially is like arguing with Satyr. Every once in awhile, Satyr will step in, when he or Lyssa feels insecure. It's easy to pull Lyssa down to the emotional level, since she lacks reasoning. Satyr will step in when threatened and his positions are assaulted. This is easy to do.
Basically, don't buy into their definitions. Define your own terms, and assert authority over both Lyssa and Satyr. These two idiots like to define everything in terms of "male and female". This is an error. Can people automatically ascribe the male gender, or female gender, for example, to "order and chaos"? Is that truly a necessary connection to make? No, instead, chaos and order are values. And genders may have different values, but this cannot speak to the invidiuality of a male or female.
Go into the particulars. What is this male about? What is that female about? What is a "masculine woman" or "feminine man"? Satyr and Lyssa are stuck on these topics.
You have a natural gift, a knack for deconstructing everything. And I think that will overpower Satyr and Lyssa's rationale. Satyr claims "degree" and "nuance". But you are far more nuanced than Satyr. You, and I, we both see far more details than he does, more discriminating.
And you are very epistemological. You can really break down philosophical concepts to their core components, and relay them in a common way, to common people. Satyr is more elitist. He wants a following and contingent. He wants popularity and social acceptance, on some level. He is not as "indifferent" as he claims. And I've seen that weakness too many times now.
This is a warning, because Lyssa is a little tricky and deceptive sometimes. You have to watch out for her lies. She is a liar. But I can see through her petty lies. She rarely, or never, speaks truly. So, in my opinion, responding to her and interacting with her, maybe a waste of your time. It maybe more worthwhile just to assault Satyr head on, and ignore that liar.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37244 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You have a natural gift, a knack for deconstructing everything. And I think that will overpower Satyr and Lyssa's rationale. Satyr claims "degree" and "nuance". But you are far more nuanced than Satyr. You, and I, we both see far more details than he does, more discriminating.
There would be no problem, therefore, if both of you retired to your new forum to discuss these matters in depth and with more nuanced intricacies than anyone here can.
Leave us in the dark and taker your "light" with you.
What makes you believe there is not another forum outside this one already?
You wish to retire, and that is expected of course. But who you retire with is still in doubt.
Still waiting for me to drop dead or retire to "take over he world", you sad fuck? Are you, or are you not, an "agent of chaos"?
I'll adjust the chaos game for ya, to make it more chaotic and random.
If you post, and the time ends in a 6, then you will be chained in the Dungeon, a number of weeks equal to the amount indicated in the number preceding it.
For example....if the time of your post indicates 4:45....nothing happens. You can post again. But if the time is 4:46, then you are in the Dungeon for 4 weeks.
What do you say, lover of chaos? Le's see how much you REALLY love randomness, and hate ORDER.
You are free to establish your own order, at any time you like....and we can only hope you never return to grace us with your secret insights, which only females who suck your dick get to taste. It is unfortunate that females are not as stupid as you wish they were, and that you cannot fake and/or imitate intelligence, as easily as you wish you could...otherwise you would not be here trying to deal with your issues.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:20 pm; edited 3 times in total
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Little Neon is so insecure that his only friend is on this forum, and him talking with me, makes him so crazy. Neon who needs advise himself on his victimization and preaching "doubt" is giving out advise on "what" to think to others... hilarious.
For me, nihilism to a greater extent (since it's a negative word), means the Denial of Platonic forms, chief among them, God and the literal soul or spirit, in addition to the denial of magick and miracles,,, and to a lesser extent (again, since it's a negative word), the Affirmation of the empirical, natural, organic world, which I don't describe as activity or entropy per say, but as the indescribable, the unfathomable, or the complex, the varied, the mysterious. If we're to remain rational, the world must precede the thought and language we use to describe it, activity being just another thought/word, and entropy, one more.
What is the world and existence if not activity?
The 'I' is always in becoming relative to the becoming of the world.
Quote :
Both males and females both strive to preserve and propagate their life force equally, more/less, they differ in their means to that end. I would not equate the latter with death and chaos, or as being less willing/able to sustain its life force, nor would I equate the latter with life and order, the way you do.
Calling dissolution and negating/resigning oneself in uniformity, nothingness as Passive is feminine since that is the state closest to nature, the flux of becoming, the principle of change, which occurs with no effort. Therefore passive.
Quote :
I equate females with all that is in the hive, and males with all that challenges it, both creatively and destructively, both mimetically and physically, both the people that challenge it from within, and the people that deal with (non)human challenges from without.
Its more appropriate to speak in terms of feminine and masculine as there are females with masculine predominance and males with feminine predominance. The strict divisions that you attribute to me or Satyr is not there; unless of course you get your information via. Neon.
As I told you, you should check out Weininger's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
A passage;
Weininger wrote:
"Contrary to the general opinion, there is no difference in the total sexual impulses of the sexes. However, if we examine the matter in respect to the two component forces into which Albert Moll analysed the impulse, we shall find that a difference does exist. These forces may be termed the "liberating" and the "uniting" impulses. The first appears in the form of the discomfort caused by the accumulation of ripe sexual cells; the second is the desire of the ripe individual for sexual completion. Both impulses are possessed by the male; in the female only the latter is present. The anatomy and the physiological processes of the sexes bear out the distinction.
In this connection it may be noted that only the most male youths are addicted to masturbation, and although it is often disputed, I believe that similar vices occur only among the maler of women, and are absent from the female nature.
I must now discuss the "uniting" impulse of women, for that plays the chief, if not the sole part in her sexuality. But it must not be supposed that this is greater in one sex than the other. Any such idea comes from a confusion between the desire for a thing and the stimulus towards the active part in securing what is desired. Throughout the animal and plant kingdom, the male reproductive cells are the motile, active agents, which move through space to seek out the passive female cells, and this physiological difference is sometimes confused with the actual wish for, or stimulus to, sexual union. And to add to the confusion, it happens, in the animal kingdom particularly, that the male, in addition to the directly sexual stimulus, has the instinct to pursue and bodily capture the female, whilst the latter has only the passive part to be taken possession of. These differences of habit must not be mistaken for real differences of desire.
It can be shown, moreover, that woman is sexually much more excitable (not more sensitive) physiologically than man.
The condition of sexual excitement is the supreme moment of a woman's life. The woman is devoted wholly to sexual matters, that is to say, to the spheres of begetting and of reproduction. Her relations to her husband and children complete her life, whereas the male is something more than sexual. In this respect, rather than in the relative strength of the sexual impulses, there is a real difference between the sexes. It is important to distinguish between the intensity with which sexual matters are pursued and the proportion of the total activities of life that are devoted to them and to their accessory cares. The greater absorption of the human female by the sphere of sexual activities is the most significant difference between the sexes.
The female, moreover, is completely occupied and content with sexual matters, whilst men are interested in much else, in war and sport, in social affairs and feasting, in philosophy and science, in business and politics, in religion and art. I do not mean to imply that this difference has always existed, as I do not think that important. As in the case of the Jewish question, it may be said that the Jews have their present character because it has been forced upon them, and that at one time they were different. It is now impossible to prove this, and we may leave it to those who believe in the modification by the environment to accept it. The historical evidence is equivocal on the point. In the question of women, we have to take people as they exist today. If, however, we happen to come on attributes that could not possibly have been grafted on them from without, we may believe that such have always been with them. Of contemporary women at least one thing is certain. Apart from an exception to be noted in chap. xii, it is certain that when the female occupies herself with matters outside the interests of sex, it is for the man that she loves or by whom she wishes to be loved. She takes no real interest in things themselves. It may happen that a real female learns Latin; if so, it is for some such purpose as to help her son who is at school. Desire for a subject and ability for it, interest in it, and the facility for acquiring it, are usually proportional. He who has slight muscles has no desire to wield an axe; those without the faculty for mathematics do not desire to study that subject. Talent seems to be rare and feeble in the real female (although possibly it is merely that the dominant sexuality prevents its development), with the result that woman has no power of forming the combinations which, although they do not actually make the individuality, certainly shape it.
Corresponding to true women, there are extremely female men who are to be found always in the apartments of the women, and who are interested in nothing but love and sexual matters. Such men, however, are not the Don Juans.
The female principle is, then, nothing more than sexuality; the male principle is sexual and something more. This difference is notable in the different way in which men and women enter the period of puberty. In the case of the male the onset of puberty is a crisis; he feels that something new and strange has come into his being, that something has been added to his powers and feelings independently of his will. The physiological stimulus to sexual activity appears to come from outside his being, to be independent of his will, and many men remember the disturbing event throughout their after lives. The woman, on the other hand, not only is not disturbed by the onset of puberty, but feels that her importance has been increased by it. The male, as a youth, has no longing for the onset of sexual maturity; the female, from the time when she is still quite a young girl, looks forward to that time as one from which everything is to be expected. Man's arrival at maturity is frequently accompanied by feelings of repulsion and disgust; the young female watches the development of her body at the approach of puberty with excitement and impatient delight. It seems as if the onset of puberty were a side path in the normal development of man, whereas in the case of woman it is the direct conclusion. There are few boys approaching puberty to whom the idea that they would marry (in the general sense, not a particular girl) would not appear ridiculous, whilst the smallest girl is almost invariably excited and interested in the question of her future marriage. For such reasons a woman assigns positive value only to her period of maturity in her own case and that of other women; in childhood, as in old age, she has no real relation to the world. The thought of her childhood is for her, later on, only the remembrance of her stupidity; she faces the approach of old age with dislike and abhorrence. The only real memories of her childhood are connected with sex, and these fade away in the intensely greater significance of her maturity. The passage of a woman from virginity is the great dividing point of her life, whilst the corresponding event in the case of a male has very little relation to the course of his life.
Woman is only sexual, man is partly sexual, and this difference reveals itself in various ways. The parts of the male body by stimulation of which sexuality is excited are limited in area, and are strongly localised, whilst in the case of the woman, they are diffused over her whole body, so that stimulation may take place almost from any part. When in the second chapter of Part I., I explained that sexuality is distributed over the whole body of both sexes, I did not mean that, therefore, the sense organs, through which the definite impulses are stimulated, were equally distributed. There are, certainly, areas of greater excitability, even in the case of the woman, but there is not, as in the man, a sharp division between the sexual areas and the body generally.
The morphological isolation of the sexual area from the rest of the body in the case of man, may be taken as symbolical of the relation of sex to his whole nature. Just as there is a contrast between the sexual and the sexless parts of a man's body, so there is a time-change in his sexuality. The female is always sexual, the male is sexual only intermittently. The sexual instinct is always active in woman (as to the apparent exceptions to this sexuality of women, I shall have to speak later on), whilst in man it is at rest from time to time. And thus it happens that the sexual impulse of the male is eruptive in character and so appears stronger. The real difference between the sexes is that in the male the desire is periodical, in the female continuous.
This exclusive and persisting sexuality of the female has important physical and psychical consequences. As the sexuality of the male is an adjunct to his life, it is possible for him to keep it in the physiological background, and out of his consciousness. And so a man can lay aside his sexuality and not have to reckon with it. A woman has not her sexuality limited to periods of time, nor to localised organs. And so it happens that a man can know about his sexuality, whilst a woman is unconscious of it and can in all good faith deny it, because she is nothing but sexuality, because she is sexuality itself.
It is impossible for women, because they are only sexual to recognise their sexuality, because recognition of anything requires duality. With man it is not only that he is not merely sexual, but anatomically and physiologically he can "detach" himself from it. That is why he has the power to enter into whatever sexual relations he desires; if he likes he can limit or increase such relations; he can refuse or assent to them. He can play the part of a Don Juan or a monk. He can assume which he will. To put it bluntly, man possesses sexual organs; her sexual organs possess woman.
We may, therefore, deduce from the previous arguments that man has the power of consciousness of his sexuality and so can act against it, whilst the woman appears to be without this power. This implies, moreover, that there is greater differentiation in man, as in him the sexual and the unsexual parts of his nature are sharply separated. The possibility or impossibility of being aware of a particular definite object is, however, hardly a part of the customary meaning of the word consciousness, which is generally used as implying that if a being is conscious he can be conscious of any object. This brings me to consider the nature of the female consciousness."
Is there anything more limited than seeing the world divided into masters [of any sort] and slaves [of every sort]?
I never said that's the only way the world can be divided up.
There's also introverts and extroverts, rationals and emotionals, ascetics and hedonists, spiritualists and materialists, whites and blacks, men and women, sane and insane, smart and stupid (and different kinds of smart and stupid), and so on. Just because you're an elite, doesn't necessarily mean you're an introvert, or an extrovert, and introvert and extrovert are also important ways of dividing up the world, and I tend to value the former over the latter, or at least I'd rather befriend/converse with the former than the latter, which is itself paradoxically, an extroverted activity, but you catch my drift, quality over quantity, at least for me in this case, introverts in some cases may merely be more discriminating than extroverts, but more/less equally social. While master/slave is an important dichotomy for comprehending human relations, it cannot possibly begin to encompass the tremendous complexity and diversity present within the human family, anymore than male/female can. Furthermore, there are many hues, nuances, shades, tones, or variances between master/slave (speaking in terms of both political and economic masters), and outside, like criminals, reformers, revolutionaries, hermits, successful small business owners, and so on, and capitalists or politicians aren't necessarily better off in every regard, or even in most regards, they may have mental/physical health problems, relationship problems, and so on. Yes there are advantages and disadvantages to having power, but still, I would rather have a more level playing field, with much less centralization of power than we have to today, or virtually no centralization of power, because I don't trust elites, especially the ones presently in power, and neither should anyone, they are untrustworthy, and I think they're plotting our further subjugation, based on my research and experience.
Quote :
Is every advantage honourable? Is every disadvantage dishonourable? Is every benefit worth it?
As I said, it depends on context, different individuals living in different places/times may require different things. Perhaps for some, slavery or serfdom would be preferable, but I'd rather be free, although I don't want my freedom badly enough to take up arms against the government at this point in time.
Quote :
You think the system must be defeated by pulling out totally, remove the power that feeds it.
Yes inevitably it must come to that.
Absolute anarchy is probably just as much of a fantasy as absolute monarchy, but at least every once in a while, it's necessary to overthrow government and either have a vacuum in its absence, or fill it with something more constitutional, democratic, or at least a more benign/moral, and less powerful oligarchy, if possible, because excessive centralization of power isn't good for our species, nor life as a whole, things get bloated, obese, and the balloon needs to popped from time to time, these things work in cycles. It's all a part of human nature, both revolutionaries and reactionaries, those calling for either absolutely, that a static state of affairs could ever be established, or are forever on either side, are the deluded ones in my view, although I tend towards the former rather than latter, of course there will always be power, but I prefer a much freer and equal state of affairs than we have at present.
Quote :
My responses to you are not in the spirit of convincing you of anything, as I already told you NE is not a "path"; its a spiritual disposition that you either are, or are not.
Right, and I have no interest in being anything other than what I am, so if I don't fall within in your conception of nobility, because of my attitude/beliefs/personality/philosophy/temperament, then so be it.
Also, I have always associated the pre-occupation with ethics with the Semites, and aesthetics with the I.Es.
I'm not sure what an "IE" is.
Yes, I too associate preoccupation with ethics with Semites, particularly Jews and Arabs of course, as well as their spiritual descendants (European Christians, Iranian Muslims...). I also associate it with the Chinese, their world religions, axial philosophies or whatever you wish to call them, especially Confucianism and to a lesser extent Daoism, seem devoid of physics, metaphysics or even theology of any kind, at least initially. Is that good or bad? Myself, I don't care, I'm not interested in being Aryan in every regard, if my philosophy is more Semitic or Sinic in some regards, then so be it. By philosophy being ethically inclined, I didn't mean to suggest that Aryans were as a whole ethically inclined, I was contrasting philosophy with science, which was and is devoid of ethics, but could perhaps incorporate ethics, which would be a novelty, largely. While kike and chink philosophy is more ethically inclined than European philosophy, I still think ethics is central to philosophy and what it means to philosophize, but of course, that's not all philosophy is, it's very broad in scope. Nietzsche's central concern was ethics, but do we say he was a Jew or a Chinamen at heart? Of course not, but perhaps a little more in that regard and in that regard alone, than other thinkers.
Quote :
It is a seeking of wisdom with objective observation of reality in this context; reality as reference and how much of it one can incorporate beyond loss/gain.
I disagree, philosophy is inquiry into many things, chief among them, loss and gain, what it means to lose/gain, and how to avert the former and attain the latter.
