Yes, I value masterly qualities when they suit myself, but when they are used against me, then I, of course, do not. It's situational. Just imagine it akin to how a boxer likes to indulge in aggression; he likes to land punches on his opponents, but he dislikes when the favor is returned. Seems natural, no?
You don't have to like being punched in the face, obviously, but you can't turn around and say that the boxer shouldn't have punched you. ---Or that whatever his skills are, they are actually bad things. To call 'evil' (or even just 'bad' or 'wrong') everything that works against you is the defining trait of a slave morality. Conversely, the master morality is one that affirms the qualities it finds in itself, simply because they are their own.
If you only value courage when it works for you and is not being used against you, then you don't really value courage as much as you value more the safety and comfort of yourself. If you only value some skill when it is good for you and not being used against you, then you don't really value that skill, you value the safety and comfort of yourself.
Main point: It's odd to hate on draconian master overlords... when they are simultaneously your fucking role models, and represent everything you wish for yourself.
I'm not trying to say that people should not exploit me, but rather that when they try to do so, I won't permit it. Why is it odd to wish to rule as opposed to be ruled over?
Stuart wrote: My ancestors are mostly of the early English immigrants to America, most of whom migrated west. That separates me from most ties to the old English nobility. I assume that is why I find it relatively difficult to focus inwardly, towards becoming refined. My disposition has always been towards ambition of a seemingly broader scope; after all, my ancestors were ones to challenge geographical frontiers. I've no doubt they were part of many conflicts, but likely paling in comparison to most Hispanics' ancestors who settled the more hostile southern regions of the New World.
You've said elsewhere you're from a low-income neighborhood and are known as a fighter. I've known many Hispanics like this, and while I don't want to be presumptuous, from what I've observed it seems likely that despite the intellectual separation you have from most of them, you still have their general framework of character, outlook and disposition.
I'm mostly of European descent - with a hint of Native-Americanoid ( Aztec/Mayan ) blood. Yes, I do have their disposition in many regards as you state, but I don't view that as a bad thing. " Make your mind civilized - Make your body savage".
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
It would be better to first develop a more complete picture of your nature before making such judgments, and only then in the context of what can be changed for the better.
Speaking for myself, I'm just barely beginning to make an honest attempt to understand my nature. I hadn't much knowledge on my origins, and as for what I did, I knew of no worthwhile way to evaluate it.
apaosha Daeva
Gender : Posts : 1847 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 37 Location : Ireland
It would be better to first develop a more complete picture of your nature before making such judgments, and only then in the context of what can be changed for the better.
If you came here looking for a cure, an antidote to whatever makes you suffer then you will be disappointed.
Knowledge and the uncovering, revealing of reality, the becoming apparent of [i]what is[i], is not necessarily pleasant. Knowledge may necessitate suffering. Increasing awareness may provoke anger, shame, despair as much as the alternative.
To know thyself is to reconnect the self to reality. Reality is available to all, but some are not willing to pay it's price.
_________________ "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
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
I thought you said that society was a cosmic joke. But when I pointed out that society consists of other people, and that you value other people, I realized you weren't.
I thought you said that some draconian political elite were bad, wrong, or something like that, but then you said they're not, and that you just don't like them.
I thought you said you were an egoist, but then you said you cared about other people, and I realized you're not.
I thought you said you valued certain masterly qualities, but then you said you value them only when they aren't used against you---which means it's your comfort that you value.
This is just from the aphorism, "Society is a cosmic joke". I thought I had found a balloon, so I expected a party... but then you burst it, and left me a mess.
Society consists of other people, yes, but society isn't other people; that is just straightforwardly false. Society is more than just " other people ".
I'm not an objective-moralist, so I don't claim things are good and evil in any absolute sense. I was speaking from a certain perspective on the issue of perceiving society as a benevolent force that endeavors to help and value everyone equally.
I said I was egoistic, but never said I was a mere philosophical egoist.
I should have chosen different words in regards to my statement about valuing masterly qualities when they suit me; that's, actually, not my position. I value masterly qualities even if they were to be used against me, but, of course, I would endeavor to prevent one from establishing dominance over me.
The following is section no. 39 of “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” from Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Twilight of the Idols.
39. Critique of modernity. — Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is universal agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good enough for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in Human, All-Too-Human (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the “German Reich,” as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations, forward and backward ad infinitum. When this will is present, something like the imperium Romanum is founded; or like Russia, the only power today which has endurance, which can wait, which can still promise something — Russia, the concept that suggests the opposite of the wretched European nervousness and system of small states, which has entered a critical phase with the founding of the German Reich.
The whole of the West no longer possesses the instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which a future grows: perhaps nothing antagonizes its “modern spirit” so much. One lives for the day, one lives very fast, one lives very irresponsibly: precisely this is called “freedom.” That which makes an institution an institution is despised, hated, repudiated: one fears the danger of a new slavery the moment the word “authority” is even spoken out loud. That is how far decadence has advanced in the value-instincts of our politicians, of our political parties: instinctively they prefer what disintegrates, what hastens the end.
Witness modern marriage. All rationality has clearly vanished from modern marriage; yet that is no objection to marriage, but to modernity. The rationality of marriage — that lay in the husband’s sole juridical responsibility, which gave marriage a center of gravity, while today it limps on both legs. The rationality of marriage — that lay in its indissolubility in principle, which lent it an accent that could be heard above the accident of feeling, passion, and what is merely momentary. It also lay in the family’s responsibility for the choice of a spouse. With the growing indulgence of love matches, the very foundation of marriage has been eliminated, that which alone makes an institution of it. Never, absolutely never, can an institution be founded on an idiosyncrasy; one cannot, as I have said, found marriage on “love” — it can be founded on the sex drive, on the property drive (wife and child as property), on the drive to dominate, which continually organizes for itself the smallest structure of domination, the family, and which needs children and heirs to hold fast — physiologically too — to an attained measure of power, influence, and wealth, in order to prepare for long-range tasks, for a solidarity of instinct between the centuries. Marriage as an institution involves the affirmation of the largest and most enduring form of organization: when society cannot affirm itself as a whole, down to the most distant generations, then marriage has altogether no meaning. Modern marriage has lost its meaning — consequently one abolishes it.
If you came here looking for a cure, an antidote to whatever makes you suffer then you will be disappointed.
Knowledge and the uncovering, revealing of reality, the becoming apparent of [i]what is[i], is not necessarily pleasant. Knowledge may necessitate suffering. Increasing awareness may provoke anger, shame, despair as much as the alternative.
To know thyself is to reconnect the self to reality. Reality is available to all, but some are not willing to pay it's price.
I seek health so that I can then seek more gainful suffering, I never expect to be at ease.
Knowing myself is humbling. The more I obtain knowledge of my origins and evaluate them, the more difficult it is to consider myself close to doing them credit.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
"Claiming the treasure is often presented as a mystical marriage. “The meeting with the goddess (who is incarnate in every woman) is the final test of the talent of the hero to win the boon of love.” The hero has passed through the initiation, discovered the object of his search, and is now ready to take it for his own. “Woman, in the picture language of mythology, represents the totality of what can be known. The hero is the one who comes to know. As he progresses in the slow initiation which is life, the form of the goddess undergoes for him a series of transformations: she can never be greater than himself, though she can always promise more than he is yet capable of comprehending. She lures, she guides, she bids him burst his fetters. And if he can match her import, the two, the knower and the known, will be released from every limitation.” If he can match her is, of course, a very big if. To claim the treasure requires the hero not only to be worthy, but to prove his worth.The guardians of the treasure “dare release it only to the duly proven. But the gods may be oversevere, overcautious, in which case the hero must trick them of their treasure. Such was the case with Prometheus. When in this mood even the highest gods appear as malignant, life-hoarding ogres, and the hero who deceives, slays, or appeases them is honored as the savior of the world."
Quote :
"In the Indo-Aryan tradition, every god-that is, every transcendent power-is joined with a bride, and the term sakti, "bride," also means "power:' In the West, Wisdom (Sophia) and sometimes even the Holy Spirit were represented as a royal woman, while in Greek mythology, Hebe, the perennial Olympian youth, was given in marriage to Heracles as a wife. In Egyptian figurations, divine women offer to the kings a lotus, which is a symbol of a rebirth and the "key of life." Like the Iranian fravashi, the Nordic Valkyrie are a figuration of transcendental parts of warriors, the forces of their destinies and victories. The Roman tradition knew of a Venus Victrix who was credited with generating an imperial stock (Venus Genitrix); the Celtic tradition mentioned supernatural women who take warriors to mysterious islands to make them immortal with their love. Eve, according to an etymology of the name, mean "Life;' or "the Living One." Thus, without proceeding further with similar examples, which I have discussed elsewhere, I wish to emphasize that a very widespread symbolism has seen in the woman a vivifying and transfiguring power, through which it is possible to overcome the human condition.
What is the foundation of the feminine representation of this power? Since every symbolism is based on specific relationships of analogy, it is necessary to begin with the possible relationships between man and woman. These relationships can be either normal or abnormal. They are abnormal when the woman dominates the man. Because the symbolism of the woman connected to this second case does not concern the issue I am discussing here, I will not dwell on it. I will only say that these are instances of gynecocratic (matriarchal) views that must be regarded as residues of the cycle of the "lunar" civilization, in which we find a reflection of the theme of man's dependency and passivity toward the spirit conceived under a feminine guise (Cosmic Mother or magna mater, Mother of Life, etc.); this is a characteristic theme of that cycle.
However, the more general idea of the woman as the dispenser of the sacrum and as a vivifying principle, or as the bearer of a life that liberates, animates, and transforms mere being, does not necessarily fall in this category; rather, such an idea may be (and indeed often was) considered a part of a spirituality that I have characterized as "heroic." In this instance, it is necessary to refer to the normal relations between man and woman as the basis of the analogy and of the symbolism; hence the fundamental concept of a situation in which the virile principle retains its own nature. The spirit, vis-a.-vis the masculine, is the "woman": the virile principle is active, the spirit passive. Even before the power that transfigures it and vivifies the hero, the virile principle retains the character that man has as the lord of his woman. In passing, we must note that this is exactly the opposite of the bridal symbolism prevalent in religious and especially in the Christian mysticism, in which the soul is attributed a feminine role, namely, that of the "bride."
Having said that, and remembering what has been said about the "signs" of the center, we find mixed symbols: the Woman of the Island; the Woman of the Tree; the Woman of the Fountain; the Woman or Queen of the Castle; the Queen of the Solar Land; the Woman hidden in the Stone; and so forth. More particularly, as the widow the woman expresses a period of silence, that is, a period in which the tradition, the power, or the strength is no longer possessed, has lost her "man;' and awaits a new lord or hero.3 Analogous is the meaning of the imprisoned virgin who waits to be freed and married to a preordained knight. On this basis, everything that in epic legends and in many chivalric romances is described in terms of adventures and heroic struggles undertaken in the name of a woman is almost always susceptible to interpretation as a symbol of the tests of the virile quality, tests that are assigned as a premise for a transcendent integration of the human personality. And if in this type of literature we also find women who are seductive and who represent a potential danger for the hero, this should not be u~derstood solely in a primitive and direct manner, that is, in terms of a mere carnal seduction. Rather, this should be understood on a higher plane as a reference to the danger that a heroic adventure can lead to a titanic fall. In this case, the woman represents the seductiveness of transcendent power and knowledge when its possession means Promethean usurpation and the sin of prevaricating pride. Another, opposite aspect may be related with what someone has called "the death which comes from a woman," referring to the loss of the deeper principle of virility." [Evola, The Mystery of the Grail]
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
I was speaking from a certain perspective on the issue of perceiving society as a benevolent force that endeavors to help and value everyone equally.
I should have chosen different words in regards to my statement about valuing masterly qualities when they suit me; that's, actually, not my position. I value masterly qualities even if they were to be used against me, but, of course, I would endeavor to prevent one from establishing dominance over me.
Suppose you're right that society is not a benevolent thing. --It's actually cruel, it doesn't treat people equally, it's power-hungry, etc.
Wouldn't you value a society like that, precisely because it's exactly like you? Isn't it a society after your own heart?
Dog eat dog world aint that bleak Mo, should try to resonate with any given enviroment coming our way. Always at least two sides to the story. I think the basic premise is that it feels much better to give than receive, in most things anyways, all in varying proportions of course.
The best song about a serial rapist ever produced will just.. Make you spontaneously understand.
I was speaking from a certain perspective on the issue of perceiving society as a benevolent force that endeavors to help and value everyone equally.
I should have chosen different words in regards to my statement about valuing masterly qualities when they suit me; that's, actually, not my position. I value masterly qualities even if they were to be used against me, but, of course, I would endeavor to prevent one from establishing dominance over me.
Suppose you're right that society is not a benevolent thing. --It's actually cruel, it doesn't treat people equally, it's power-hungry, etc.
Wouldn't you value a society like that, precisely because it's exactly like you? Isn't it a society after your own heart?
I can value a draconian overlord from a sort of detached, intellectual point of view, e.g., his power, strength, intelligence, cunning, etc. I can say to myself that I would like those qualities for myself. But that doesn't mean I'm going to passively allow some tyrant to put me on the bad end of the stick just because he has admirable qualities.
Sure, I can appreciate a society that is fascist as it would be the kind of society I would have if I were at the top, but if I'm on the bad end of the stick, it's my personal enemy.
Will: Expressing a strong intention or assertion about the future
Representation: The description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature
The will is the ultimate nature of reality, undifferentiated. It is not visible or tangible itself. The world is the representation of the will. They are both correlated, but epistemically distinct. The external world does not exist objectively as we experience it; our experiences are subjective in nature, i.e., mental constructs. For example: The greenness of grass is not an inherent property of the grass, but rather the minds representation of force. The opposing philosophical position is Direct-Realism ( pejoratively: ' Naive-Realism' ) which would argue that the greenness of grass ( qualia ) is an inherent part of the grass and that it continues to exist on the grass even when there are no points of consciousness or awareness to perceive.
Schopenhauer was inspired by the Rig Veda and his ideas are, certainly, in agreement with Brahmanical ontology. But it is imperative to note that Arthur Schopenhauer was a thorough going nihilist, a despiser of nature. He even believed that the Will ( The ultimate reality ) was inherently evil. He based this off his perception of the barbarity of the natural world which is, after all, according to him the representation of the ultimate. He believed that the world should be shunned.
A simple question was asked in Yahoo Answers. The question: " Why do black people have flat noses?". The responses are highly indicative of the hyper-feminization process. Enjoy!
I can value a draconian overlord from a sort of detached, intellectual point of view, e.g., his power, strength, intelligence, cunning, etc. I can say to myself that I would like those qualities for myself. But that doesn't mean I'm going to passively allow some tyrant to put me on the bad end of the stick just because he has admirable qualities.
Sure, I can appreciate a society that is fascist as it would be the kind of society I would have if I were at the top, but if I'm on the bad end of the stick, it's my personal enemy.
It's consistent enough, I suppose.
Here's my beef. Egoism is worth only as much as the person who has it. How do you determine what value you have, if you are the measure of everything valuable? (Fascism is bad, unless it works for you. Courage is bad, unless it works for you. Etcetera. You can say, "I like courage, even if it's bad for me..." but I'm not sure that you actually do, given what you've said.)
This isn't a question I have a definite answer to, and I'm not trying to trap you. It's something I'm thinking out-loud about...
You could say that your family is an extension of yourself, but then dying for your family wouldn't be an example of something you'd be for, that may harm you personally.
Lots of people have thought that---in a state of nature---we are in a war of each against all. But all of them, (as far as I am aware), use that as a premise toward the conclusion that society is a necessity. --An argument in favour of the status quo, usually. E.g., Glaucon, Machiavelli, Hobbes. But I suppose it depends on what country you live in, what political rights you have, what laws exist, whether your family would be safer with society as it is.
This just begs the question....is altruism even possible? The family could be seen as an extension of the self - that's valid.
I still think it's a war against all even in modern society - it's just less bloody and barbaric. We still compete for females, jobs, social status, etc, etc.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37123 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
This just begs the question....is altruism even possible? The family could be seen as an extension of the self - that's valid.
I still think it's a war against all even in modern society - it's just less bloody and barbaric. We still compete for females, jobs, social status, etc, etc.
Altruism depends on one thing: identification. How each individual identifies self.
When this is understood then "altruism", or what is called "selflessness" becomes another act of selfishness, or self-fullness.
MRA - MGTOW movement becoming more and more popular
I've noticed that the mgtow - MRA phenomena is increasing rapidly - a sort of snow ball effect. I was watching boxing videos on Youtube ( a completely irrelevant topic in regards to MGTOW ) and people in the comment section were talking about MRA stuff.
The MRA and MGTOW Youtubers have mass followings - kind of reminds me of the Atheist movement on Youtube; legions of hardcore disciples. I guess it's, really, indicative of the times we are living in. Women's standards are being raised to, essentially, super-human standards - plus the economic crisis is a sort of cherry on the sunday; more and more men losing their jobs, being denied opportunities, and so on. I suspect that Mannequin is correct in his prediction that men will start killing females more frequently. Sexual frustration plus the misandric/feministic system are the perfect recipe for carnage.
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
This just begs the question....is altruism even possible? The family could be seen as an extension of the self - that's valid.
Lots of things can be seen as an extension of yourself. If you were raised like most people in the West, the public system probably has more to do with what propensities you've brought forth than your own family. Friends, teachers, coaches, other institutions, etc. When you take responsibility for yourself, you cease to let those accidents of causes determine you---but the same holds for your family. You become your own person. That's why sacrifice for your family is altruistic. The target of your action is not you, it's them. --That's altruism, I would think.
Quote :
I still think it's a war against all even in modern society - it's just less bloody and barbaric. We still compete for females, jobs, social status, etc, etc.
No biggie. Competition is not war. Think about the way we actually compete for jobs, in a society---by pursuing credentials, networking, or selling your own shit, etc. Or for females, by taking care of your body, sharpening your conversation, etc. Or for political reforms, by convincing other people we have the better position, etc. It's actually pretty civilized, most of the time.
Without that civilization/society... we would compete for women by beating ourselves over the head with a club. Or a fucking battle-axe, if you prefer. There'd be no jobs, I would just try to steal your fucking bananas. Civilization, the ideal at least, channels competitive instincts to make you better at being what you are. To the extent that it does so, it's worth defending.
Depends where you live, I suppose. The brutal draconian overlord, who by force rapes my wallet at tax time....... is using it for old age security, among other things.
Man is a pack animal.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
The ideal of equality within a society doesn't make the members of said society equal. An ideal can't be reached, and any kind of life-form doesn't even try to reach it. What it does is to adapt to the environment. In this case the ideal can be so powerful, as to create an artificial environment with the idea of equality being set as the ideal.
So one should not expect organisms to try and reach the ideal but to adapt to the environment which is created by the ideal. For example, the ideal of equality has brought about a race to the bottom in victim status. People don't try to become equal, what they do is, to adapt to the artificial environment by claiming victim status - To gain an advantage, not equality. They specialize and adapt to the environment.
All the same for the ideal of altruism. Equality and altruism set as an ideal are destructive - They bring about an increase in entropy. They function as an artificial entropic force in an environment which is suffocating its inhabitants with too much pre-made, man-made, order.
Every man's freedom is one way or another an other man's slavery, no foreseeable future will put an end to this dynamic. A man cannot choose the cards he was given in life, but he can decide how to use them. Determine if they harbor the best of trade-offs. I've too often looked down on others, thinking the best of hands somehow results in default victory. Now things have become more clear, honoring the past in achieving the highest of potentials. Those of whom a head start was given often lose this sight, deterring this greater richness.
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
Every man's freedom is one way or another an other man's slavery, no foreseeable future will put an end to this dynamic. A man cannot choose the cards he was given in life, but he can decide how to use them. Determine if they harbor the best of trade-offs.
How do you feel when you read someone like Nietzsche---someone with the power to see through you, to know you better than you know yourself, and to write like lightening. Aren't you freer, now, because of the power he had?
A plainer example might be some scientific researcher, who has the freedom of his time, the freedom of resources to pursue his interest, his space, his equipment, his safety, etc. Isn't that freedom? --And look what you get out of his freedom... A longer life.
I meant indirectly as in always somebody, the event, the dynamic has winners and losers in for the most part disgracefully uneven proportions. This is the only means of overall advancement, not untill a hivemind mechanism is implemented can the dynamic be somewhat changed.
Say what you will about Inmendham, he does have a footing in realism of sorts. His personality is among the best. For him Nietzsche is more akin to a poet than philospher, calling upon the subscribers to stop noticing the whole picture & focus inward, to perfectly channel this force.
