Aesthetics

One last thing, you stupid cunt...
Because the mind simplifies/generalizes reality, by perceiving patterns, or ordering, in the entropy, it is limited by this fact.
Firstly it is limited by the organism's sensual acuity, you whore, and secondly it is limited by the brain's ability to process and incorporate into models the data it can receive.

But because reality is dynamic, ever-changing, the ordering perceived is always incomplete, and unstable, uncertain , deteriorating - it is interacting continuously.
It takes a simple mind to focus on the immediate ordering, without a care...but a more sophisticated, objective mind, knows that the perceived order is incomplete, imperfect, and only partially perceived.

What this means, you moron, is that any appreciation of the perceived order is fraught with costs, with risks.
It has a cost.
To immerse yourself in the order, in the sensation of pleasure, is easy...as it is something all animals can do.
A higher cognition realizes that this ordering is occurring within a disordering, and that everything perceived has changed the moment you perceive it, or as you perceive it.

Even though we are automatically inclined towards perceiving order, the mind that can think beyond the immediate realizes that there is a potential consequence, there is increasing entropy, there is change - the perceived is not perfectly ordered, it is not perfectly symmetrical.
A dumb manimal is not troubled because it simply gives in to its natural inclinations to be attracted to any order, all order.
A human projects the negative as an inevitability of this manifestation of ordering.

In closing, you stupid cunt...pleasure is the physical (re)action, the automatic, genetic, response to a perceived order, ...and aesthetics is the mental, the cognitive (imaginative) appreciation of order, promising pleasure but detached from it.
We may appreciate aesthetically, cognitively, the beauty of a woman, but we only feel pleasure when we fuck her.

Therefore, we might appreciate a man's intellect, aesthetically, but we cannot find pleasure in mind-fucking him, unless we employ the imagination.
The physical and mental, is bound into one with the nervous system.
The pleasurable combine there, as physical and mental appreciation of ordering.

Pleasure in the physical and mental, become one in the concept of ordering.
Both appreciate symmetry, or release energies, automatically stored (stored order in code), that promise a renewal, a reaffirmation, and/or growth of symmetry, life.

Sluts want to satisfy their insatiable appetite for cock without paying a cent, or without sense.

I don't need any more of your rambling. What I asked was very specific, and it takes a worm to wiggle out of answering it. Answer,  or resign to silence as I for now on refer to you as worm.

Satyr wrote:

Schopenhauer's definition of pleasure stand unchallenged. 
Schopenhauer's Aesthetics
Although I disagree with his response to this reality, I fully agree with his judgments. 
 

My issue is how you can say that Schopenhauer is unchallenged while at the same time you have disagreed with me on everything in this thread  You can either be all suffering and all is need, or you can agree with Schoppie on aesthetics. There is the third option that you are full of shit and know not of what you speak.

I'm posting an section here for your benefit, since you are too much of a scumbag to go look and read for yourself. Enjoy.

Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Section 38 wrote:

§ 38

In the aesthetical mode of contemplation we have found two inseparable constituent parts — the knowledge of the object, not as individual thing but as Platonic Idea, that is, as the enduring form of this whole species of things; and the self-consciousness of the knowing person, not as individual, but as pure will-less subject of knowledge. The condition under which both these constituent parts appear always united was found to be the abandonment of the method of knowing which is bound to the principle of sufficient reason, and which, on the other hand, is the only kind of knowledge that is of value for the service of the will and also for science. Moreover, we shall see that the pleasure which is produced by the contemplation of the beautiful arises from these two constituent parts, sometimes more from the one, sometimes more from the other, according to what the object of the aesthetical contemplation may be.

All willing arises from want, therefore from deficiency, and therefore from suffering. The satisfaction of a wish ends it; yet for one wish that is satisfied there remain at least ten which are denied. Further, the desire lasts long, the demands are infinite; the satisfaction is short and scantily measured out. But even the final satisfaction is itself only apparent; every satisfied wish at once makes room for a new one; both are illusions; the one is known to be so, the other not yet. No attained object of desire can give lasting satisfaction, but merely a fleeting gratification; it is like the alms thrown to the beggar, that keeps him alive to-day that his misery may be prolonged till the morrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will, so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with their constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we can never have lasting happiness nor peace. It is essentially all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear injury or seek enjoyment; the care for the constant demands of the will, in whatever form it may be, continually occupies and sways the consciousness; but without peace no true well-being is possible. The subject of willing is thus constantly stretched on the revolving wheel of Ixion, pours water into the sieve of the Danaids, is the ever-longing Tantalus.

But when some external cause or inward disposition lifts us suddenly out of the endless stream of willing, delivers knowledge from the slavery of the will, the attention is no longer directed to the motives of willing, but comprehends things free from their relation to the will, and thus observes them without personal interest, without subjectivity, purely objectively, gives itself entirely up to them so far as they are ideas, but not in so far as they are motives. Then all at once the peace which we were always seeking, but which always tied from us on the former path of the desires, conies to us of its own accord, and it is well with us. It is the painless state which Epicurus prized as the highest good and as the state of the gods; for we are for the moment set free from the miserable striving of the will; we keep the Sabbath of the penal servitude of willing; the wheel of Ixion stands still.

But this is just the state which I described above as necessary for the knowledge of the Idea, as pure contemplation, as sinking oneself in perception, losing oneself in the object, forgetting all individuality, surrendering that kind of knowledge which follows the principle of sufficient reason, and comprehends only relations; the state by means of which at once and inseparably the perceived particular thing is raised to the Idea of its whole species, and the knowing individual tu the pure subject of will-less knowledge, and as such they are both taken out of the stream of time and all other relations. It is then all one whether we see the sun set from the prison or from the palace.

Inward disposition, the predominance of knowing over willing, can produce this state under any circumstances. This is shown by those admirable Dutch artists who directed this purely objective perception to the most insignificant objects, and established a lasting monument of their objectivity and spiritual peace in their pictures of still life, which the aesthetic beholder does not look on without emotion; for they present to him the peaceful, still, frame of mind of the artist, free from will, which was needed to contemplate such insignificant things so objectively, to observe them so attentively, and to repeat this perception so intelligently; and as the picture enables the onlooker to participate in this state, his emotion is often increased by the contrast between it and the unquiet frame of mind, disturbed by vehement willing, in which he finds himself. In the same spirit, landscape- painters, and particularly Ruisdael, have often painted very insignificant country scenes, which produce the same effect even more agreeably.

All this is accomplished by the inner power of an artistic nature alone; but that purely objective disposition is facilitated and assisted from without by suitable objects, by the abundance of natural beauty which invites contemplation, and even presses itself upon us. When ever it discloses itself suddenly to our view, it almost always succeeds in delivering us, though it may be only for a moment, from subjectivity, from the slavery of the will, and in raising us to the state of pure knowing. This is why the man who is tormented by passion, or want, or care, is so suddenly revived, cheered, and restored by a single free glance into nature: the storm of passion, the pressure of desire and fear, and all the miseries of willing are then at once, and in a marvellous manner, calmed and appeased. For at the moment at which, freed from the will, we give ourselves up to pure will-less knowing, we pass into a world from which every thing is absent that influenced our will and moved us so violently through it. This freeing of knowledge lifts us as wholly and entirely away from all that, as do sleep and dreams; happiness and unhappiness have disappeared; we are no longer individual; the individual is forgotten; we are only pure subject of knowledge; we are only that one eye of the world which looks out from all knowing creatures, but which can become perfectly free from the service of will in man alone. Thus all difference of individuality so entirely disappears, that it is all the same whether the perceiving eye belongs to a mighty king or to a wretched beggar; for neither joy nor complaining can pass that boundary with us. So near us always lies a sphere in which we escape from all our misery; but who has the strength to continue long in it? As soon as any single relation to our will, to our person, even of these objects of our pure contemplation, comes again into consciousness, the magic is at an end; we fall back into the knowledge which is governed by the principle of sufficient reason; we know no longer the Idea, but the particular thing, the link of a chain to which we also belong, and we are again abandoned to all our woe. Most men remain almost always at this standpoint because they entirely lack objectivity, i.e., genius. Therefore they have no pleasure in being alone with nature; they need company, or at least a book. For their knowledge remains subject to their will; they seek, therefore, in objects, only some relation to their will, and when ever they see anything that has no such relation, there sounds within them, like a ground bass in music, the constant inconsolable cry, "It is of no use to me"; thus in solitude the most beautiful surroundings have for them a desolate, dark, strange, and hostile appearance.

 

So now it becomes about Schopenhauer?
You stupid cunt....who is wiggling?

Schopenhauer is unchallenged in his description of reality as interpretation, and his clarity concerning females, academics, and the metaphors he used to describe reality as a symphony of tones, before the idea of String Theory was even imagined.

Other than that, you idiot, I could care less about him.
I do not follow, I learn and move on.
That's why I do not give much attention to Nietzsche, feeling proud to be the best mouthpiece, his best bitch.  

Schopenhauer's definition of pleasure as a negative...the negation of the sensation of existence as need/suffering.
Brilliant, and perfectly aligned with my positions.

YOU brought Schopenhauer to a thread entitled Aesthetics, so now please open wide and suck on it.

phonee wrote:

YOU brought Schopenhauer to a thread entitled Aesthetics, so now please open wide and suck on it.

Did you just declare victory, cunt?

I need not agree with everything a man says, because men are just men, no?
I do not worship, like the man-child.

I referred to Schopenhauer in the context of what he said that agreed with my positions, not as a blanket agreement on everything he said...you stupid cow.
And when I find another thinker I can use to support my views I do so, because I know dumb cunts, and stupid men-children, are impressed by fame and fortune...so I use them to manipulate simple minds.


Tell me...
What do you dream of sucking?
Do you also want to be my bitch?

Did you or did you not post a link to an article on Schopenhauer's aesthetics, specifically, worm?

phoneutria wrote:

Did you or did you not post a link to an article on Schopenhauer's aesthetics, specifically, worm?

I did cunt...and?
My cunt...do you dream of being my cunt?

You did, and you said it stands unchallenged, but you disagree with it.
Option three it is:
You are full of shit.

phonee wrote:

You did, and you said it stands unchallenged, but you disagree with it.
Option three it is:
You are full of shit.

Did you read above?
I agreed with the definitions I mentioned.
Those remain unchallenged.

World as Interpretation
Pleasure as a negative.
And his opinions on females, academics, and charlatans.

Do you agree with his aesthetics?

phonee wrote:

Do you agree with his aesthetics?

I am here to present my opinions.
If you come here to be a parrot...do so.

Being Schopenhauer's bitch might interest your man-child, if he can handle two masters.
I am not Schopenhauer's apologist, nor do I have to accept all his positions and conclusions to admire his mind and his clarity.

If you wish to speak on issues using proxies, then I am not your man.
How may times have you seen me debate over who understood someone the best?

His positions, one more time you stupid cunt, on pleasure being a negative, the world as interpretation, his comments on suffering...and his positions on women, academics and pretenders, remain unchallenged.

The issue is not whether he was right or wrong. The issue is whether you agree with him or not on aesthetics, specifically.

It is a yes or no question, worm.

You can always say " I stand corrected, I should not have posted a link to Schopenhauer's aesthetics, because upon reading I realize that I do nit agree with it."

It is what a man would do.

A worm will continue to try to wiggle its way out.

Are you a man, or are you a worm?

The will-less contemplation is itself an interpretation, an interpretive activity, and every interpretation, every consciousness or self-conscious objectivity involves a very "interested" not dis-interested contemplation, and therefore rooted in need.

Get it, maggot?

So we have a picture forming.

We have an emotional vampire who gets a fix from passion expressed towards her, because, presumably, in her life either she was not given this emotional fix or she received too much and she became accustomed to it.

Whereas I come here to discuss reality as I see it, she, and her pet man-child can only approach reality through a proxy.
Having nothing to say about reality they turn to the only thing they can hope to have to say and that is something about  reality some one said.
Reality about someone's reality.  

And because of this flaw, they cannot comprehend how someone can agree with another on many points and still not agree with him on all points..or disagree on the conclusion.
Because their minds are vacuous and uncreative, in regards to reality directly, they are the either/or of you either agree with such and such or you disagree with them.
There is no middle ground.

You are either married or not.
It's the simplicity of a common moron.
The either/or structured with words they never explore individually, nor with an understanding as to what words are.

This is how for such imbeciles the sentence "There are absolutely no absolutes", or "Truth is there is no truth" is so perplexing they can spend hours discussing it.

Now, in the recent discussion, if you can call their mind-games worthy of that title, they declared victory not on the basis of my views, but on what they thought contradicted my views by the statement I made concerning Schopenhauer's positions as unchallenged.
Granted a bit of hyperbole on my part, desiring of clarification, but still very little to do with MY positions, as I think of them.
That they pounced exposes the manimal. How they pounced exposes the particular qualities of the manimal.

Let me use the quote the slut used to underline what I agree with and what I do not, or I am ambivalent about:

Schopenhaur, Aurhtur wrote:

Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Section 38 wrote:
   § 38

   In the aesthetical mode of contemplation we have found two inseparable constituent parts — the knowledge of the object, not as individual thing but as Platonic Idea, that is, as the enduring form of this whole species of things; and the self-consciousness of the knowing person, not as individual, but as pure will-less subject of knowledge. The condition under which both these constituent parts appear always united was found to be the abandonment of the method of knowing which is bound to the principle of sufficient reason, and which, on the other hand, is the only kind of knowledge that is of value for the service of the will and also for science. Moreover, we shall see that the pleasure which is produced by the contemplation of the beautiful arises from these two constituent parts, sometimes more from the one, sometimes more from the other, according to what the object of the aesthetical contemplation may be.

   All willing arises from want, therefore from deficiency, and therefore from suffering. The satisfaction of a wish ends it; yet for one wish that is satisfied there remain at least ten which are denied. Further, the desire lasts long, the demands are infinite; the satisfaction is short and scantily measured out. But even the final satisfaction is itself only apparent; every satisfied wish at once makes room for a new one; both are illusions; the one is known to be so, the other not yet. No attained object of desire can give lasting satisfaction, but merely a fleeting gratification; it is like the alms thrown to the beggar, that keeps him alive to-day that his misery may be prolonged till the morrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will, so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with their constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we can never have lasting happiness nor peace. It is essentially all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear injury or seek enjoyment; the care for the constant demands of the will, in whatever form it may be, continually occupies and sways the consciousness; but without peace no true well-being is possible. The subject of willing is thus constantly stretched on the revolving wheel of Ixion, pours water into the sieve of the Danaids, is the ever-longing Tantalus.

   But when some external cause or inward disposition lifts us suddenly out of the endless stream of willing, delivers knowledge from the slavery of the will, the attention is no longer directed to the motives of willing, but comprehends things free from their relation to the will, and thus observes them without personal interest, without subjectivity, purely objectively, gives itself entirely up to them so far as they are ideas, but not in so far as they are motives. Then all at once the peace which we were always seeking, but which always tied from us on the former path of the desires, conies to us of its own accord, and it is well with us. It is the painless state which Epicurus prized as the highest good and as the state of the gods; for we are for the moment set free from the miserable striving of the will; we keep the Sabbath of the penal servitude of willing; the wheel of Ixion stands still.

   But this is just the state which I described above as necessary for the knowledge of the Idea, as pure contemplation, as sinking oneself in perception, losing oneself in the object, forgetting all individuality, surrendering that kind of knowledge which follows the principle of sufficient reason, and comprehends only relations; the state by means of which at once and inseparably the perceived particular thing is raised to the Idea of its whole species, and the knowing individual tu the pure subject of will-less knowledge, and as such they are both taken out of the stream of time and all other relations. It is then all one whether we see the sun set from the prison or from the palace.

   Inward disposition, the predominance of knowing over willing, can produce this state under any circumstances. This is shown by those admirable Dutch artists who directed this purely objective perception to the most insignificant objects, and established a lasting monument of their objectivity and spiritual peace in their pictures of still life, which the aesthetic beholder does not look on without emotion; for they present to him the peaceful, still, frame of mind of the artist, free from will, which was needed to contemplate such insignificant things so objectively, to observe them so attentively, and to repeat this perception so intelligently; and as the picture enables the onlooker to participate in this state, his emotion is often increased by the contrast between it and the unquiet frame of mind, disturbed by vehement willing, in which he finds himself. In the same spirit, landscape- painters, and particularly Ruisdael, have often painted very insignificant country scenes, which produce the same effect even more agreeably.

   All this is accomplished by the inner power of an artistic nature alone; but that purely objective disposition is facilitated and assisted from without by suitable objects, by the abundance of natural beauty which invites contemplation, and even presses itself upon us. When ever it discloses itself suddenly to our view, it almost always succeeds in delivering us, though it may be only for a moment, from subjectivity, from the slavery of the will, and in raising us to the state of pure knowing. This is why the man who is tormented by passion, or want, or care, is so suddenly revived, cheered, and restored by a single free glance into nature: the storm of passion, the pressure of desire and fear, and all the miseries of willing are then at once, and in a marvellous manner, calmed and appeased. For at the moment at which, freed from the will, we give ourselves up to pure will-less knowing, we pass into a world from which every thing is absent that influenced our will and moved us so violently through it. This freeing of knowledge lifts us as wholly and entirely away from all that, as do sleep and dreams; happiness and unhappiness have disappeared; we are no longer individual; the individual is forgotten; we are only pure subject of knowledge; we are only that one eye of the world which looks out from all knowing creatures, but which can become perfectly free from the service of will in man alone. Thus all difference of individuality so entirely disappears, that it is all the same whether the perceiving eye belongs to a mighty king or to a wretched beggar; for neither joy nor complaining can pass that boundary with us. So near us always lies a sphere in which we escape from all our misery; but who has the strength to continue long in it? As soon as any single relation to our will, to our person, even of these objects of our pure contemplation, comes again into consciousness, the magic is at an end; we fall back into the knowledge which is governed by the principle of sufficient reason; we know no longer the Idea, but the particular thing, the link of a chain to which we also belong, and we are again abandoned to all our woe. Most men remain almost always at this standpoint because they entirely lack objectivity, i.e., genius. Therefore they have no pleasure in being alone with nature; they need company, or at least a book. For their knowledge remains subject to their will; they seek, therefore, in objects, only some relation to their will, and when ever they see anything that has no such relation, there sounds within them, like a ground bass in music, the constant inconsolable cry, "It is of no use to me"; thus in solitude the most beautiful surroundings have for them a desolate, dark, strange, and hostile appearance.

Will , in my view, cannot be detached from the organic body, because it is the focus of that organism's aggregate energies.
We cannot speak of a will separate from organism.
We might project our Will outside our body, make it some universal force directing all actions, but these are artistic metaphors.
If we say the world has Will we are using our brain to prove a universal consciousness, or some motive, or a force being directed.
We, as parts of the world, attain the possibility of Will, that is to become self-directing and, perhaps to attain the pinnacle of godliness and become self-sufficient, a singularity.

Here I part with both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
For me the word "will" is inapplicable as a force outside an organism, and the universe is disorganizing, not organizing.
If we wish to close the contemplative loop and say that it is disorganizing and organizing at the same time, to maintain a mental abstraction, then this cyclical process still lacks a motive, a goal.
The Will emerges in the towards entropy, chaos, and so it is a tumbling towards randomness, not towards an end.    

Although I've read both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche I do not return to their theses in their entirety.
I appropriate the parts that are in-line with my own positions and file the rest under undecided or useless.  

For the duo of stupidity, the motive is to find a reason to dismiss my views, without having to respond to them, or read them.
To do so they must find and blow out of proportion a single negative possibility.
it's the absolutism of either/or....all or nothing....the other genius or simpleton.
No gradations.

Pleasure totally detached from aesthetics.
Pleasure must become totally detached from need.
What Schopenhauer describes as a out- of body detachment of Will, the "pure contemplative", which uses purity to describe a degree of detachment that purifies by forgetting, becoming absorbed, distracted by the object of symmetry.
That the Will emerges to make this possible from the process of ordering, is not negated by this conscious detachment; that our tastes evolve to serve us in survival, is not negated by their subsequent degree of detachment from the immediate appreciation of objects/objectives.
So, pleasure is not a negation of the experience of existence as need....it is a momentary detachment, brought about by the distraction such a relief offers the mind.
This contemplative detachment is also experience in meditation...but with meditation the mind does not exit the processes that make it possible as part of the body, it simply quiets them, soothes them to the point where the body does not disturb its focus.    

Either you agree with Schopenhauer, completely, or you do not completely, is part of the either/or of Nihilistic thinking.
A reader of a book cannot agree with parts of a thinkers thoughts, while not agreeing with others. It's an either/or situation where one must always offer disclaimers to the morons of the world, of what should be obvious.  
If, for example, I agree with parts of Freud, not not mean I must accept the entirety of his insights, nor even his conclusions based on them.

It is why i rarely, if ever, return to reading the books I've read.
For me the process of reading is like eating. Once I've consumed a thought process, I excrete what I cannot process or is toxic to my own thinking and move on to the next meal. I do not return to the eaten over and over again...to feed on it again and again.
This is why I do not care to quote, or to memorize the exact wording, or the names or the precise terminology.
For me the thought process has an underlying logic, a foundation. This I evaluate and I appropriate, and then I move on.
A thinker is a mentor I then absorb and apply through my own engagement with reality. I do not linger on him, in a lifelong love affair, trying to remain true to the thinkers thinking.

If I'm asked what about another's thoughts I liked or agreed on, even if a dull conversation for me, I will offer my opinion on an other's opinions.
But I prefer discussing reality, and about the world directly.

Lyssa wrote:

The will-less contemplation is itself an interpretation, an interpretive activity, and every interpretation, every consciousness or self-conscious objectivity involves a very "interested" not dis-interested contemplation, and therefore rooted in need.

Get it, maggot?

Yes...

Thew Will, in my world-view, is made possible by this drive to satisfy need.
it is the organism's aggregate energies, processes, focused towards an object/objective.
If it detaches, or to whatever degree it manages to detach itself amounts to attaining objectivity, or mimicking the godly perspective of detached observer.
Losing one's self in the object/objective does not mean you are lost to time/space.
The brain so distracted is still part of an organic unity which is keeping it oxygenated, so as to make this journey towards the object/objective.

If I become aroused by a woman's shape, I might become lost in its form, and promise, or in the sensation of my body's heightened state, but the reason why I am aroused has been programmed as part of the organic processes that find focus in consciousness.

I am not free from the need this arousal expresses, because I am unaware of it or because I am lost in the arousal.
When I void my mind from thoughts, entering a meditative state, I am not extracted from the time/space continuum which makes this state and its attainment possible.
I might become unaware of it, distracted, hypnotized...but I do not detach anything other than my consciousness.  

The appreciation of beauty might lead to a detached, objective, appreciation, but it is still rooted in an organic need that makes the particular manifestation of its appearance something I can become lost in, and something I can then appreciate as objectively as possible.
to be ignorant is not to be free. To get drunk or become lost in the moment, is not to exit time.

The shapes, sounds, rhythms, hues, shapes, symmetrical analogies that make the object/objective seductive, attractive something that captures my consciousnesses, are a result of need, a lack.
If I become momentarily unaware of this lack, because my will has focused, been mesmerized by the object/objective to a degree where little is left to be self-conscious, this does not mean that what makes the object/objective mesmerizing is not because it inspires and seduces the absence in me, seeking gratification, completion, salvation, completion in the other.  

That I am conscious is because I am ordering, not order...Becoming not Being.  
It is the absence of an absolute that makes consciousnesses a useful tool.
If this consciousness can become mesmerized, absorbed, inebriated, distracted, placated, focused, is not evidence that it is now outside the space/time continuum that is about a lack of absolutes.

The mind might become absorbed, but the brain that makes the mind possible, is not.

Dictionary wrote:

dictionary.search.yahoo.com
n. noun

   The branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and expression of beauty, as in the fine arts.

   In Kantian philosophy, the branch of metaphysics concerned with the laws of perception.

   The study of the psychological responses to beauty and artistic experiences.

Dictionary wrote:

n. noun

   The state or feeling of being pleased or gratified.

   A source of enjoyment or delight.

   The graceful skaters were a pleasure to watch.

   Amusement, diversion, or worldly enjoyment.

v. verb

   To give pleasure or enjoyment to; gratify.

   Our host pleasured us with his company.

   To take pleasure; delight.

   The hiker paused, pleasuring in the sounds of the forest.

   To go in search of pleasure or enjoyment.

Why diverge from the code, the text, and ask questions?
Words must be adhered to religiously.
They are not tools, or means to an end, they ARE the end.
By the book, for the book.
The "creativity" of the average.

To the "Why?'
Just Because.

Equivalent to the "What?"
Whatever.
"Who?"
Whomever
"Where?"
Wherever.

"Ever" is the dismissive part.
The point lost in the eternity, the forever, the everlasting.
The void of chaos.  

A dismissive cowardice; a stupidity wanting to settle on what it can wrap its tiny brain around.

"Why do I think"
Just because.
"Why does the sun rise?"
Just because.
Why did he die?
Just because.
"Why do I feel pleasure?"
Just because.

The end of the scientific method, of philosophy.

The "just" is the dismissive part.
The "just" is the reduction of the phenomenon to a thing, no different than any other thing, as a some-thing, and/or any-thing.
"Just a man" he is.   

Some- and no- are the either/or...-thing is the end, the Just/Ever.

Not "a man" but "just a man".
Reduction to thingness where all is equated as a some-thing and a no-thing.
The either/or of thingness.  

It's the infantile mind wanting to end the uncertainty with a final resolution that is nothing other than dismissive.
The goal is to dismiss...to return to the either/or of sensation.
Freedom is this either/or choice.
I choose it to be either/or.

This or That
The polar opposites of dualistic contexts.
The dynamism of Becoming reduced to a point in space/time, a Being here and Being there.
Identity split into mind/body - my aesthetic leanings are not the same as my pleasures.
I can offer physical fidelity to one, and mind fuck another.
My pleasures are not burdened by a cohesion. They can remain splintered into two standards.  

A slight negative will suffice to go to the other extreme.
If a man is not perfect, a God...then he is equalized as "just" a man.
Just another man.
And a perspective is "just another perspective".
Perspectivism = equalization using the negative.
If there is doubt then all is equally in question - they are doubted.

No submission to superiority. The mind escapes in the negative - the cynical justification of escaping.
The superior is blemished by its incompleteness as omnipotence/omniscience.
The potential Divine leveled down to "just" another pretender.  

It's the same cynical dismissal, that levels all down to a nothing/something.
In this Nihilistic paradigm the either/or is used to return to a desirable end.
This can be anything because the absolute is missing and so it can be imagined in any way.  

If the man is not a God, he is no more or less than an other man...and an idea is either perfect or it is no more than just another  idea.

Thank you for taking the trouble to read what you posted , animal.
Perhaps now we can have a conversation of a better quality.

Ha!!

No more games, cunt.

From now on if you evade, play your mind-games, insinuate without trying to clarify, I'll ignore your stupid ass.
If you offer nothing, you will get nothing.
I'm not in the business of salvation or pity.

Go play with the man-child, you imbecile...he's on your level.
You think he's not on yours, but he is.

Here's the thing, woman...
You are an attention whore. You feed off attention, on the passions you miss in your life.

That's why it is enough that I read your post, even if it was a plagiarism, a quote. You wanted me to pay attention to your dumb ass, to acknowledge your presence, because your hubby doesn't...and the man-child is so naive you cannot tolerate his childishness for long.
You are not burdened because you can offer fidelity in the physical, and then be a whore in the mental.
A spirit divided in itself.
Aesthetics are other than pleasures, because you cannot tolerate their common ground.

This is how you justify the self-contradictions in you.

This emoting is what you feed on, you vampire.
Not reasoning....emoting.
You lack passion and so you covet it in others.
You feed off the romantic musing of the man-child...and you wanted me to give you my own.
You are morbid...a zombie.
Feeding, desiring, forever craving...never satiated.
A rotting husk...afraid of its mortality, as she deteriorates towards a skull.
This is why "old" is an insult for you.  

All you want is to create a reaction.
It's how you feel valuable, like you matter....like burning yourself to receive attention.


And you are welcome for my passionate diagnosis.

I am an animal...but not just an animal, you brain dead vampire.

Lyssa wrote:

The will-less contemplation is itself an interpretation, an interpretive activity, and every interpretation, every consciousness or self-conscious objectivity involves a very "interested" not dis-interested contemplation, and therefore rooted in need.

Get it, maggot?

Uh oh... yappy guard dog is here. I better get a leash, lest I get a little nibble on my ankle.

Rooted in need, but not pursued for need's sake.

Get it, you sad little idiot?
Shall I say it again and again, or can you just read the fucking thread again?

EDIT: adding a quote for your benefit.

phoneutria wrote:

Please note that this does not remove the relation between lust and the sense of beauty. What it does is to acknowledge that beauty from an aesthetic point of view must be separated from lust to be understood... something you seem incapable to do.

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

The will-less contemplation is itself an interpretation, an interpretive activity, and every interpretation, every consciousness or self-conscious objectivity involves a very "interested" not dis-interested contemplation, and therefore rooted in need.

Get it, maggot?

Uh oh... yappy guard dog is here. I better get a leash, lest I get a little nibble on my ankle.

Rooted in need, but not pursued for need's sake.

Get it, you sad little idiot?
Shall I say it again and again, or can you just read the fucking thread again?

Does it make you cringe, dear, you can't experience your feminity... tut, tut

Did you apply proper make-up and rogue to your fashionable gashes and stab wounds, instead?

I am going to enjoy showing the illogics, predominantly that retardation by those less endowed than myself, that plague this thread...

Catch up if you have a brain, and if it hasn't totally detached from your janey, wandering about for pleasures...

Quote :

"That things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subjectivity, is a quite idle hypothesis: it presupposes that interpretation and subjectivity are not essential, that a thing freed from all relationships would still be a thing. Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective?-that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself"-that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?" [N., WTP, 560]

The need needn't make itself conscious although it is what wires us...

Get it, you miserable turd, or should I get a skunk to help you open your senses, you pathetic little repressed creature...

Pleasure nothing to do with Aesthetics....like mind has nothing to do with brain, the flesh....like past has nothing to do with present....like genes have nothing to do with memes...like appearance has nothing to do with essence, spirit, nature, soul...

Therefore the manimal is freed from its nature.
It is unburdened by it.
It's behavior becomes incomprehensible....actions of "just because".
It is mystical.

A glass of poisonous nil, please.
I want to free myself from this abominable physicality...by killing myself.

This is going in circles, she is a waste of time.

Either she is incapable of applying a brain, or she chooses to pick only those parts of metaphysics that comfort and justify her hedonism.

She wants to be ignored??

With "pleasure"?

This is a waste of time because you two are talking about need in a thread about aesthetics, which is NONSENSE, since it is the very separation of need from the observation that creates the distinction of what the aesthetic sense is.
There is only so many ways I can say this.

Satyr wrote:

Pleasure nothing to do with Aesthetics....like mind has nothing to do with brain, the flesh....like past has nothing to do with present....like genes have nothing to do with memes...like appearance has nothing to do with essence, spirit, nature, soul...

Therefore the manimal is freed from its nature.
It is unburdened by it.
It's behavior becomes incomprehensible....actions of "just because".
It is mystical.

A glass of poisonous nil, please.
I want to free myself from this abominable physicality...by killing myself.

Need, lust, concupiscence all exist, and all are at the root of why we like what we like, but they are not aesthetic.
An aesthetic observation demands that you detach from those things.

Satyr wrote:

That the Will emerges to make this possible from the process of ordering, is not negated by this conscious detachment; that our tastes evolve to serve us in survival, is not negated by their subsequent degree of detachment from the immediate appreciation of objects/objectives.
So, pleasure is not a negation of the experience of existence as need....it is a momentary detachment, brought about by the distraction such a relief offers the mind.
This contemplative detachment is also experience in meditation...but with meditation the mind does not exit the processes that make it possible as part of the body, it simply quiets them, soothes them to the point where the body does not disturb its focus.

Is this you talking, here? Or is it Schopenhauer?
I want to make sure that you are in alignment with this, and not just posting something that you actually disagree with... for whatever lunatic reason that is beyond me.

Because if it is so, this is what I have been saying in this thread countless times.
A sample:

Your favorite one:

phoneutria wrote:

When we engage on aesthetic pursuits, it is not because we are concerned with our necessities, it is done freely and spontaneously for its own sake, because it interests us.
Call it trivial if you will. I call it the place where we find ourselves Human.

Pardon my poor wording on this one. Mea maxima culpa. Beauty should be replaced by Aesthetic.

phoneutria wrote:

Disagree. There is no logical cause and effect here. The product of need producing excess is... excess.
Beauty is the product of the desire to occupate the idleness which excess provides.
Beauty is not rooted in need/suffering. In order for it to originate, it requires for need/suffering to cease.
Two realms. One comes into existence when the other ceases to exist, and vice-versa.

phoneutria wrote:

We engage in aesthetic pursuits freely and spontaneously.

Engage is the word here.

phoneutria wrote:

And you confuse aesthetic with pleasure.
Not all pleasures are aesthetic.
Your lover boy Schopenhauer himself wrote that lust counters the proper goals of art and prevents aesthetic contemplation. Did you skim through that part? The part where the will man talks about a will-less form of perception? An observation that is devoid of a will... hmm what could we call that...

Do you disagree with that? Shall Shoppie be challenged, after all?

Please note that this does not remove the relation between lust and the sense of beauty. What it does is to acknowledge that beauty from an aesthetic point of view must be separated from lust to be understood... something you seem incapable to do.

phoneutria wrote:

There is no argument in my view against the genetic roots of aesthetic appreciation.
What I have been saying this entire time is that that is a separate subject.

You're frustrated, so am I. You are not interested in a conversation, you want to fight windmills, like a crazy old man.

Is this now where you say I did not say what I said? That I did not mean the meaning of a word as what the word means? Like a worm?

Or is this where you lick my boot, animal?

Lyssa wrote:

Either she is incapable of applying a brain, or she chooses to pick only those parts of metaphysics that comfort and justify her hedonism.

Am I the one picking the whole of an idea and highlighting bits of text here and there that I agree with, and denying the rest?

phoneutria wrote:

This is a waste of time because you two are talking about need in a thread about aesthetics, which is NONSENSE, since it is the very separation of need from the observation that creates the distinction of what the aesthetic sense is.
There is only so many ways I can say this.
Need, lust, concupiscence all exist, and all are at the root of why we like what we like, but they are not aesthetic.
An aesthetic observation demands that you detach from those things.

Wrong. That is only a Schopenhauerian AesthetiC  that demands you do so.

Quote :

"Error reached its peak when Schopenhauer taught: the only way to the "true," to knowledge, lies precisely in getting free from affects, from will...
To win back for the man of knowledge the right to great affects! after self-effacement and the cult of "objectivity" have created a false order of rank..." [N., WTP, 612]

I am hungry. --- (sub)Consciousness.

What am I hungry for? --- Self-consciousness.

How am I satiating my hunger? --- Aesthetics.

It is an expression of how our needs are satiated....

Aesthetics is a Science of evaluating sensory-values, sensory-power judgements.  

Aesthetics is applying objectivity to self-consciousness, which is a Continuous reflection of our need......  there is no break.  Objectivity itself is a reflection of our need for Order - pleasure.... and aesthetics expresses this objectvity.   Therefore aesthetics and need/pleasure are not separated.

To say, as you do, "rooted in need but not pursued for need's sake" - as what is aesthetics, is NON-SENSE.

Pleasure to the body is satiation of a need, and aesthetics expresses how we choose to satiate this need and this 'how' therefore requires objectivity, FOR pursuing that need ----- efficiently. ---"For need's sake".

Get it?


You wish to define aesthetics as that objective disposition which reduces noise-factors in judgement [divorcing of needs from consciousness] and therefore allows a thing to be appreciated for its own sake.

Yet, take note, there are two kinds of objectivity that You confuse:


1.

Schopenhauerian's "will-less will" or "disinterested contemplation"  As Self-effacement is a sense-dimunition.

Schopenhauer's aesthetiC begins with a hedonistic moralism, of already making evaluations via pain/pleasure and "disinterested contemplation" - "objectivity" - to Elicit that picture of the world which is "unchanging". This is dubbed the truth. Fluxion, the changing nature of the world makes him weary and so assess the world in value of pleasure and displeasure.
His "Objectivity", his aesthetiC is "governed" by hedonistic moralism.  
Self-effacement and self-detachment as the aesthetic state from which the 'unchangeability' of the world can be perceived.
Pain/pleasure decide his aesthetic, than the other way.

This is an objectivity from exhaustion that teaches dimunition of the senses because it cuts the world through the pain/pleasure angle.


2.

Scientific objectivity is the disciplined employment or application of every power of the senses to discriminate and observe an entity from the fullness and engagement of one's being. This kind of Objectivity AS Self-assertion is a sense-augmentation.

The ability to stand at a distance from oneself when the senses are sharp, powerful, and so able to disregard values of pain/pleasure impressing itself as evaluatory-factors in judgement;

Quote :

"Objectivity" in the philosopher: moral indifference toward oneself, blindness toward good or ill  consequences: lack of scruples about using dangerous means; perversity and multiplicity of character considered and exploited as an advantage.
My profound indifference toward myself: I desire no advantage from my insights and do not avoid the disadvantages that accompany them.- Here I include what might be called corruption of the character; this perspective is beside the point: I use my character, but try neither to understand nor to change it-the personal calculus of virtue has not entered my head for a moment." [N., WTP, 425]

This kind of Objectvity deploys every method, every sense, every tool at its disposal to gather observation without effacing its character, without effacing self-involvement.

This is Objectvity from a Fullness of the senses.


Nuance!

Quote :

"The modern spirit's lack of discipline, dressed up in all sorts of moral fashions.- "objectivity" (lack of personality, lack of will, incapacity for "love")..." [N., WTP, 79]

Quote :

"Radical objectivity towards subjectivity would mean attempting honesty to the point of absurdity. To focus on rooting out the deepest sources of subjectivity amounts to seeking out those truths that are most destructive to subjectivity, i.e. self-interest. It is to make a specialty of truths that kill.

If I had no biases I would be dead, rather that sitting here right now, writing about them. To approach the most biasless state of death is to pursue a course of rational selfdestruction through a rigorous elimination of biases towards life. Yet to be value neutral would be to not be biased towards objectivity over subjectivity or vice versa. While objectivity is not inherently self-justified as an end in itself, objectivity could be a means. Objectivity could be a means, for example, of rational self-destruction." [Heisman, Suicide Note]

Quote :

"How far would one be willing to go in pursuit of scientific objectivity? Objectivity and survival are least compatible when objectivity becomes a means of life, subordinate to life — as opposed to life subordinated to objectivity. If the greatest objectivity implicates confronting the most subjective biases, this implicates confronting those truths that most conflict with the subjective will to live. By simply changing my values from life values to death values, and setting my trajectory for rational biological self-destruction, I am able to liberate myself from many of the biases that dominate the horizons of most people’s lives. By valuing certain scientific observations because they are destructive to my life, I am removing self-preservation factors that hinder objectivity. This is how I am in a position to hypothesize my own death.

So if objectivity is not justified as end, then objectivity can be a means of rational self-destruction through the overcoming of the bias towards life. Rational self-destruction through the overcoming of the bias towards life, in turn, can be a means of achieving objectivity. And this means: To will death as a means of willing truth and to will truth as a means of willing death." [Heisman, Suicide Note]

Quote :

""Synthetic processes of life work in paradoxical relationship to analytic processes because natural selection effectually “analyzed” or “chose” certain synthetic processes over others. This implies that the most complex syntheses might incorporate an analytic blind spot related the preference of some synthetic organizations over others.

A living thing cannot incorporate all physical possibilities into itself if it is to remain alive. Life, on some level, is an organization synthesis that contradicts, overcomes, or outsynthesizes the physical probabilities of its immediate environment that would otherwise lead to death. Just as the life processes of an individual bacteria cell could not exist if its cell walls were opened to all the physical possibilities of its outside environment..." [Heisman, Suicide Note]

Quote :

"It is a measure of the degree of strength of will to what extent one can do without meaning in things, to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself.
The philosophical objective outlook can therefore be a sign that will and strength are small. For strength organizes what is close and closest; "men of knowledge," who desire only to ascertain what is, are those who cannot fix anything as it ought to be.
Artists, an intermediary species: they at least fix an image of that which ought to be; they are productive, to the extent that they actually alter and transform; unlike men of knowledge, who leave everything as it is..." [N., WTP, 585]

As opposed to the "nihilistic", "Xt.", "hedonistic" world-view,  in the "naturalistic", "pagan", "non-hedonistic" world view, Man as an aesthetiC being is an Organizer, and not just an ascertainer, an Observer.

Every objective interpretive activity is already an organizing activity.

To say Aesthetics is "rooted in need but not pursued for need's sake" is not only stupid and non-sensical, but
also nihilistic.

There is NO divorce.

There is NO separation.


Do realize, Your hedonism has even quantified the definition of Aesthetics.

To you, as with the Xt. Schopenhauer and the Jew Heisman, Objectivity is a "how much"  can I detach myself to obtain a noise-free observation...

But Aesthetics is not a "how much", but a "how" am I detaching myself to obtain a noise-free observation.
From sense-dimunition or sense-fullness?, pain&pleasure or beyond pain&pleasure, etc.

Taste, Aesthetics ex-presses this degree of objectivity-that-reflects/preserves/real-izes our subjectivity.
The Pursuit FOR need's sake.