Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics

Lyssa wrote:

Pride in one's ancestry simply for being born, simply for existing, being alive, is not a value in itself?

Pride could be a flaw, if it prevented you from reflecting on your past, and who you are.

Do you value yourself simply because you were born? Or your ancestors, simply because they were born? I am a combination of some strengths, and some flaws. I see both, in my past. I look at my weaknesses as an opportunity and a challenge, and I'm grateful for that. What would be the point of things if everything were already given to you? To say that I value myself and my past is NOT to say that I was born a god, perfect in every way.

If you value your past simply because it is your past, without recognizing the valuable qualities embodied in your past, as well as the flaws, then that entire pride you feel is an emotional response. If there's something wrong with that, then it's a flaw that I'm admitting of myself, because I would feel it in the case of any hypothetical child that I would have.

But that doesn’t stop me from reflecting on my past, and recognizing both the good and the bad, because how else would I know thyself. I don't simply say, "It's personal".

Quote :

And then you argue, about Loving your child no matter how it turns out should you have fallen in love with any third-rate creature which may possess whatever other qualities.

Do you see your contra-diction?

This, is called exposing a flaw.
"Hope I've benefitted you..."

That is a fair question. And yes, I think you have benefitted me. I'd like for you to answer it, as well---to see if you answer differently.

I would love the child no matter what his weaknesses were. So, do you contradict yourself in that way, if it is a contradiction? I can come up with some reasons, if you want, as to why I would love/value any child that I have. But the honest answer is that I don't think it changes the fact of the matter.

But perhaps it's not really a contradiction. It's one thing to value the future (as in your child), no matter what. But perhaps that's still not a reason to avoid reflecting on the past, or the nature of value.

So, now it's your turn to answer the question: Would you love your child, no matter what? Have you contradicted yourself?

Satyr wrote:

He, Moo, indulged in a childish game of infinite regress of "why?", masking as the Socratic method...and then, again as a child would, gave the only answer he could imagine would stop it: "Just Because".
Plato would be proud.
It's as far as he could go.
Very philosophical.
The "Last Man" on display...the end of thinking.

It's a shame that you deleted that entire conversation, as well as the one that followed it. Why did you do that? You could have posted it, here.

You can read exactly what I meant when I used the phrase, "just because"---it is still in the thread on Aesthetics, and it was underlined originally. Why don't you read that post, again?

Mo wrote:

Why don't you read that post, again?

Because it pleases him to cling to the caricatures that he makes.
You should take no offense from the old man, because you are not the target.
The target is a little stick figure with a dunce hat, that he drew while looking at you.

Dictionary wrote:

spon·ta·ne·ous
[spon-tey-nee-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2.
(of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3.
(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4.
growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5.
produced by natural process.

Given the mutitude avenues of escape where shall we seek guidance to understand how Phonee used the term "spontaneous" as it related to aesthetics.

A quote:

Phonee 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.

Given the specimen's position on need, and how it is unrelated to aesthetics, the "freedom<>independence" connection can be understood as the specimen's position.
Since need is not an internal sensation, perhaps for her, then her comment on "for its own sake" points to a direction...back upon itself.
why do I do this and not that?
Just because....for its own sake.
The connection between actor and act is severed....the act loops back upon itself to justify itself.
The world is excluded....it is freed from environmental conditioning.
A singularity is born.

It's not that different, actually, from Moos, desire, need, to now distance himself from the "just because"...which is itself an allusion to miraculous spontaneity.
I do not construct a division between internal/external. My position being that the psychology, the inclination, the predisposition, is a continuance of what precedes as this has been formed by the becoming interactivity with environment....
An appearance is a manifestation of its entire past, as this has been affected by environments.
Interactivity is this environmental conditioning.
Here environment can be placed in the category of "external" and the emergent near-unity, we call being, or life, can be called the "internal".
Mind/Body
 
Aesthetics, for me, is directly linked to the organization, or the emergence of a consciousness, which then can appreciate its self via otherness.
It appreciates beauty not just because, not for its own sake, but because life is ordering.

The specimens, both of them, will use dictionary definitions to now evade what they intended with the usage of the terms they chose. The choice of words exposes their intent.
Their little communions in the ChatBox were not accidental.
That they used two different methods to express their agreement concerning the disconnect between need and evaluation, points to a shared ideal.
For Moo it came in the form of a break in the causal chain...."just because".
The "whys" being infinite regress or another way of saying continuum.
A dissatisfied with itself mind, would seek a break...a repose.

For Phonee it came in the form of a miraculous, un-caused, by external forces, emergence of appreciation...a spontaneous emergence.
The usage of the term "free" is a further clue as to the intent.
Nothing is free...so spontaneous and freedom are linked, in the specimen's mind. She uses both in her sentence.
Free, as in independent.

But no being is independent, as all are contingent...and environment determines all.
The spontaneous, using the definitions is not free. It is a product of a stimulation...not choice. it exists as a possibility, evolved in time...not out of nothing, not free. Not 'just because'...but 'because of'.
This is what she wishes to escape. She wants to purify the aesthetic from its foundations, from its past, from its environmental grounding.
Moderns do the same with the emotion of 'love'. It too is a "just because"....like selflessness.
Both Moo and Phonee are adherents of the secular humanist, Christian doctrine of love as pure, holy...with no ulterior motives....spontaneous as in not connected to any interest, to any need.

It's not, according to her, about order, symmetry...it is free, spontaneous.
Detached from reality.
A word emerging out of the depths, with no connection to anything: free.

If it is internal, then again it is stimulated into emergence by the environment, and placed there, again, by environmental conditioning in the past.
Man appreciates symmetry, beauty, and all that it symbolizes, implies, because he is an ordering.
The environment is he, and he is the environment.  

But the specimen wants to distance itself from this....it wants to liberate the sacred from its vile foundations.
The "old" is this primal it wants to cleanse away.
She needs to be enlightened....raised up, off the earth.

Christian.
Remember how Christianity explains existence.
God creates it spontaneously...not because He needs to....that would contradict His perfection....but "just because".
He does so in the nothingness.
No cause required.
It just happens.
The nothingness spontaneously produces somemthingness.
The causal chain is broken by a "just because."
No "why?" means no "cause".
Only effect, purified effect.
The open-ended uncertainty is closed-off into a certainty, faith....which must be mysterious, ambiguous, mystifying....just because.

Completion is achieved...no further "why?" needs to be asked...no uncertainty.
The "why?" is given a final answer, which is not one: "Just because"..."Spontaneous".
What caused this spontaneity, what placed it there as a possibility awaiting to happen, awaiting to be stimulated into expression/activity?
No exploration needs to be pursued.
we've reached the end, the teleos.
For its own sake.
An end...a teleos.
The circle is closed and a singularity is born.
The "spontaneous" is defined. It is not a possibility, developed there after generations of evolution, based on the self-interests of life as an evolving ordering, but "for its own sake"....a looping back upon itself...
Freedom. No contingency....no cause....liberty, Independence....'Just Because'.  

Man appreciates beauty, just because...for its own sake.
Not because he is attracted by its promise.
God created the world just because, for His own sake.
A circle is closed.
An absolute is constructed.  
God did not need - boredom being a need - but acted Just Because.
Man does not appreciate order, symmetry, patterns, as beautiful, because he is an incomplete pattern...but for their own sake.
Just because.

I know the meaning of the word, sir.
It is you in your prejudice against the very word, who is mistaken.

phoneutria wrote:

I know the meaning of the word, sir.
It is you in your prejudice against the very word, who is mistaken.

Oh my sweet.
The Bible is full of words.
Salvation for example.
God...miracles....truth.

How people understand them and use them, in conjunction with other words, exposes how they relate to them.
Your usage of the term "spontaneous" in conjunction with "freedom," and with everything else you said, exposes your intent.
You are a hypocrite dear.
 
Your need to cleanse the appreciation from a self-interested motive exposed your intent when you used the term.
Because if you used the term in the manner in which you now pretend you did, then spontaneous did not exclude need...for need would be what produced this spontaneity, once triggered by the stimulation.
For you the term was a 'something out of nothing,' a 'just because'....'it just happened.'

My sweet, Phonee, you are a christian mind...or, if you prefer, call yourself Modern.

I am ancient.
Never you mind me.
My spirit has been living in the forests for centuries.

I am Satyr.

A spontaneous action is a free action because it is not rooted in an imperative to act.
Failure to engage in a spontaneous activity will not result in suffering.
This is is what defines a purely aesthetic engagement.

Do you understand that?

By removing the impulses from the discussion, I do not imply that the impulses do not exist. The purpose is to define what an aesthetic value is.
It is not a why question, it is a what question.

We all know about the why. We all have human bodies, for crying out loud. There isn't a single retard on this website who could not understand that.

I have no way to put this any more clearly for those in the audience dealing with advanced dementia. I tried.

Further, I welcome you to reread my posts in the aesthetics thread and point out the inconsistencies you are uncomfortable with.

Nice save, dear.
Now "we all know" what you denied?
Fabulous.
No freedom...all is caused, contingent, dependent on the past.

Now, some homework for you, little old woman:
Follow the logical string, the pattern, back...as far back as you can...
Know Thyself.
First step towards freedom is knowing you are not free.

Thanks for finally coming around and agreeing with me.
We'll consider it a feeding.

Bon apetite

Run along now.
You've tired my old boners.

phoneutria wrote:

Further, I welcome you to reread my posts in the aesthetics thread and point out the inconsistencies you are uncomfortable with.

You asked me this before, Phoneee, and when I offered a quote, you ignored it.
now go fuck yourself, will ya?

Here....
Because I'm a nice guy.
I really do not want to waste my time on another imbecile, old woman...so if you want a response do what I do: begin by defining the words you use.

Here it is, again, hypocritical old wench:

Phoneee 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.

I've underlined the terms.

Now go away.

Well, thank you for finally picking up a dictionary.
You may want to do that first in the future, before shitting bricks over a word, not after.

Satyr wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Further, I welcome you to reread my posts in the aesthetics thread and point out the inconsistencies you are uncomfortable with.

You asked me this before, Phoneee, and when I offered a quote, you ignored it.
now go fuck yourself, will ya?

Here....
Because I'm a nice guy.
I really do not want to waste my time on another imbecile, old woman...so if you want a response do what I do: begin by defining the words you use.

Here it is, again, hypocritical old wench:

Phoneee 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.

I've underlined the terms.

Now go away.

Did I not just address that quote AGAIN, in my 12:42 pm post, right above?
Do you still find it inconsistent?

phoneutria wrote:

Satyr wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Further, I welcome you to reread my posts in the aesthetics thread and point out the inconsistencies you are uncomfortable with.

You asked me this before, Phoneee, and when I offered a quote, you ignored it.
now go fuck yourself, will ya?

Here....
Because I'm a nice guy.
I really do not want to waste my time on another imbecile, old woman...so if you want a response do what I do: begin by defining the words you use.

Here it is, again, hypocritical old wench:

Phoneee 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.

I've underlined the terms.

Now go away.

Did I not just address that quote AGAIN, in my 12:42 pm post, right above?
Do you still find it inconsistent?

fifi pretending not to understand what Satyr's pointing out in his underlining -

"Freely"

How is something done freely?  free-will? what...?

Let her Define "freely" or be content to gag on her own priapic ignorance. Its looks very thick.

phoneutria wrote:

A spontaneous action is a free action because it is not rooted in an imperative to act.
Failure to engage in a spontaneous activity will not result in suffering.
This is is what defines a purely aesthetic engagement.

Do you understand that?

Excess of energies if not released threaten the critical equilibrium of an organism. This too is a need rooted in suffering. The need to release.

Get it?

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Pride in one's ancestry simply for being born, simply for existing, being alive, is not a value in itself?

Pride could be a flaw, if it prevented you from reflecting on your past, and who you are.

Do you value yourself simply because you were born?

Are you suggesting that those Afros who have to live with a slave legacy and simply bypass that with whatever convenient amnesia or, come up with theories of Black Beethovens to compensate their esteem are unhealthy, or do you recognize self-deception that is critical for self-preservation is not part of a life-affirmative value?

It may not be the Highest or the Noblest value, but affirming life with whatever dialectics at its disposal, the drive to self-preserve Is a sign of Health.

Mo wrote:

Quote :

And then you argue, about Loving your child no matter how it turns out should you have fallen in love with any third-rate creature which may possess whatever other qualities.

Do you see your contra-diction?

This, is called exposing a flaw.
"Hope I've benefitted you..."

That is a fair question. And yes, I think you have benefitted me. I'd like for you to answer it, as well---to see if you answer differently.

I would love the child no matter what his weaknesses were. So, do you contradict yourself in that way, if it is a contradiction? I can come up with some reasons, if you want, as to why I would love/value any child that I have. But the honest answer is that I don't think it changes the fact of the matter.

But perhaps it's not really a contradiction. It's one thing to value the future (as in your child), no matter what. But perhaps that's still not a reason to avoid reflecting on the past, or the nature of value.

1. What is love when you ask me those questions?

2. What stops you from "marrying" a homosexual *just because* he may have some valuable qualities you admire?

The two are entwined.

Quote :

So, now it's your turn to answer the question: Would you love your child, no matter what? Have you contradicted yourself?

1. Did I state anywhere I was a multiculturalist? My views are on the racial threads, do a search here entering "race".

2. If my child turned gay, how does that affect Objective value-judgements on any issue? How do you arrive at Objective value-judgements - inferring them from emotional simulations?

fifi wrote:

We will have the old man understand the meaning of the word spontaneous by the end of this week.
We shall dunk his spongy grey matter in a pool of the stuff.

No. no. No.

Not before I first use my fingers to vigorously massage your brain tissue, probing for malignancies of any type, using my words to lube those dry dry haggish nerve-sheaths, ingeniously ducking away at the massive amounts of queefing that will bound to occur when I squeeze those nerve-endings...

fifi wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Recognize, a hypocrite is one who cannot apply his own reasonings to himself. Instead of exposing flaws, you use flagrant hyperbole to overwhelm an answer, and then complain, he doesn't respond.

Doesn't the hyperbole here expose the flaw?
What would limit apaosha from engaging in this hyperbole, given his objective, and if nothing else is at play?

So here we have a demo of the classic nihilist's "either/or" psychology Satyr has touched on so many threads.

If you say you are not for multicultural miscegenation, then you must f--- your sister.

If you say there is no absolute fact, then you have no reason.

If you say there are no absolute truths, then everything is relative.

Either/or. No gradations. No nuances.

Rigid DRY absolutist-binary thinking.


Fifi states that mixed bag gives a lot more advantage in the light of some coming catastrophe; but have miscegenated  stock produced anything culturally advanced to help us entertain the thought, till that coming catastrophe, these miscegenations would even last that long, and not simply atrophy and die?

What is culturally advanced about today's miscegenation for instance? What have they produced? What have they given us?

Where does she derive reason in placing her hope in miscegenation?

Where is the experience of history backing this?



EDIT: What combination cannot prevail today as valuable, will prevail tom. is akin to the gambler's fallacy.

Lyssa wrote:

Are you suggesting that those Afros who have to live with a slave legacy and simply bypass that with whatever convenient amnesia or, come up with theories of Black Beethovens to compensate their esteem are unhealthy, or do you recognize self-deception that is critical for self-preservation is not part of a life-affirmative value?

What?

"Convenient amnesia"? I said the opposite of that. Read my post again, if you are going to respond to it, at all. You read like a butcher. You skim a sentence and then hack it off from the whole---only missing the whole point. Recognize that, by reading the post. I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone isn't interested in recognizing what the other person said. I'll clarify anything, if you at least try.

Quote :

1. What is love when you ask me those questions?

If you are going to answer the question, then you will tell me what it means to you, when you answer. To me, off the top of my head, I would say that whatever else "love" involves, it also involves a caring for, a sacrificing for, an identification with, a helping grow, a directing your actions toward, a respect, and to value that person and do all of those things, regardless of their flaws.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Are you suggesting that those Afros who have to live with a slave legacy and simply bypass that with whatever convenient amnesia or, come up with theories of Black Beethovens to compensate their esteem are unhealthy, or do you recognize self-deception that is critical for self-preservation is not part of a life-affirmative value?

What?

"Convenient amnesia"? I said the opposite of that.

And who said you said that?

Re-read what I said without nit-picking in the middle.

You said Pride can be a flaw, I asked if self-deception isn't vital to living?

Mo wrote:

Quote :

1. What is love when you ask me those questions?

If you are going to answer the question, then you will tell me what it means to you, when you answer. To me, off the top of my head, I would say that whatever else "love" involves, it also involves a caring for, a sacrificing for, an identification with, a helping grow, a directing your actions toward, a respect, and to value that person and do all of those things, regardless of their flaws.

Why aren't you f---- your brother? By your own logic, it is the closest person one can feel such kind of love for, no?

If love has nothing to do with genetic fitness, and you see yourself marrying a homo, then speaking of Objectivity and taking Apaosha to task for personalizing things is a Farce.

Lyssa wrote:

You said Pride can be a flaw, I asked if self-deception isn't vital to living?

Before changing the topic, why don't you address what I wrote?

Quote :

Why aren't you f---- your brother? By your own logic, it is the closest person one can feel such kind of love for, no?

Because we're talking about father's love for a child. That's context. Read what I fucking write. You are sticking your fingers down your throat.

Have fun, if that's what you want. I'll move away.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

You said Pride can be a flaw, I asked if self-deception isn't vital to living?

Before changing the topic, why don't you address what I wrote?

I said Pride in one's ancestry is a value in itself.

You said Pride is flawed, and one can deceive oneself or be ignorant of one's ancestry and bear false pride without Knowing Oneself.

I said self-deception is vital to life; affirming one's roots through whatever dialectics is a sign of health and that is a value in itself.
This affirmation may not be "clean", but the Dionysian standard "how much truth can you endure?" is a question of Degree.

Mo wrote:

Quote :

Why aren't you f---- your brother? By your own logic, it is the closest person one can feel such kind of love for, no?

Because we're talking about father's love for a child. That's context. Read what I fucking write. You are sticking your fingers down your throat.

Have fun, if that's what you want.

I said,
1. define love, and 2. would you marry a homo because you want to assemble his good qualities and that they are entwined.

Contexts.

Clear?

If you want to obfuscate and play smoke and mirrors, saddle up and ride on.

Lyssa wrote:

You said Pride is flawed, and one can deceive oneself or be ignorant of one's ancestry and bear false pride without Knowing Oneself.

Here's what I said...

Quote :

Pride could be a flaw, if it prevented you from reflecting on your past, and who you are.

Do you have a problem with that?

Lyssa wrote:

I said self-deception is vital to life; affirming one's roots through whatever dialectics is a sign of health and that is a value in itself.

If you'd rather not dig into some parts of your ideas, and past, and so on, then just say it. Is that what you mean when you say, "self-deception is vital to life". Because I thought this forum was called "Know Thyself"... not "Deceive Thyself".

Affirming yourself is not the same thing as thinking you were born a god, perfect in every way.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

You said Pride is flawed, and one can deceive oneself or be ignorant of one's ancestry and bear false pride without Knowing Oneself.

Here's what I said...

Quote :

Pride could be a flaw, if it prevented you from reflecting on your past, and who you are.

Do you have a problem with that?

Lyssa wrote:

I said self-deception is vital to life; affirming one's roots through whatever dialectics is a sign of health and that is a value in itself.

If you'd rather not dig into some parts of your ideas, and past, and so on, then just say it.

Forcing people into a total binary either/or is no good. Weak.

I speak of Degrees.

How much one can afford to look into one's roots does not negate self-affirmation as a healthy value.

Mo wrote:

Affirming yourself is not the same thing as thinking you were born a god, perfect in every way.

Degrees.

To *want to be god* is an affirmative instinct.

Mo wrote:

If you'd rather not dig into some parts of your ideas, and past, and so on, then just say it. Is that what you mean when you say, "self-deception is vital to life". Because I thought this forum was called "Know Thyself"... not "Deceive Thyself".

And what did N. say about the three kinds of history and how much forgetting is necessary to health?

To Know Thyself, is also to Know Where to draw that line which helps you realize max. freedom - open space for max. self-possibility.

Know Thyself is a knowledge of Fitness.

I am constant need.
It bubbles up inside of me, forcing me to expel it outwards.
Sometimes this way, sometimes that way...when I'm strong, when I overflow.

When I am weak I gather myself I turn inward, I appropriate, collecting...my creativity is exhaust din self-preservation, I have nothing to give, I preserve, maintain.

When my body is fed, my mind is released. It also needs a focus, it also hungers for patterns, for order, a reason, a goal.

When it does not find one it creates one.
It builds...or it destroys.
Every creative act is a creation and a destruction...all bubbling out of my excesses, which are the byproduct of my lack, which has appropriated them for a time.
I need to rid myself of their pressure.
I need to express my essence, to connect with otherness, to take and to give.
I am interaction - interaction is not something I do, it is what I am.
There is no "I" which just happens to act...the act is the "I", and is nothing if not that.

I am lack, movement, seeking, wanting...directing, seeking a fulfillment, a finality, a teleos.
I am Becoming wanting to Be.
What excesses I gather I direct towards this end.
If not I become bored...I despair, I urn on myself....I need inebriation, numbness, to cease to experience my own existence, to not feel time brushing up upon me.    

No freedom.
I am thrown into the world, without my consent.
All the processes that keep me going are automated. I do not control them....I discover them, and can end them, but I cannot choose them.
I am them. Without them I am not.  
Then I spend a lifetime reacting to entropy, to otherness, to the flow of time, to the unknown.
Even when I think I am still, content, my essence is a churning cellular sea, feeding, building, healing, dying, dividing....neural pulses streaming through my brain which I become aware of, self-consciousness, as if I am other than it - this is my mind.  
All automatic, because my consciousnesses develops after life emerged...and my self-awareness later still.
I discover myself as I would any otherness.    
My senses began outwardly focused.
Later neurological networks connected me to my own organic processes.
I received data from them, as I once did from my senses.  
Binary logic in its nascent state.

I invented God to explain this disconnection from myself...this sense of alienation - this relationship to my own becoming as if it were an otherness.
Again, discontentment was my first experience.
My mortality troubled me...it filled me with fear, anxiety, a new source of to feed my need: the need to survive, for longer.
A need to leave something behind, to matter, to create something longer than I in duration...to cheat time.
So now I began looking, again, for a fulfillment...not for a way to accept, to cope, but to correct, to escape, to fulfill this insatiable need.

What I did not find I decided to make myself.

Ah sweet resentment.
What man can accept his own death without a hint of anger?
An overman?

pet wrote:

fifi pretending not to understand what Satyr's pointing out in his underlining -

"Freely"

How is something done freely?  free-will? what...?

Let her Define "freely" or be content to gag on her own priapic ignorance. Its looks very thick.

I see you also missed my post form 12:42 at first. It's ok dear, I forgive your haste. You've had fifi stomping around your playpen all week and you are eager to right all the wrongs. It's alright, pat pat pat.

Quote :

phoneutria wrote:

A spontaneous action is a free action because it is not rooted in an imperative to act.
Failure to engage in a spontaneous activity will not result in suffering.
This is is what defines a purely aesthetic engagement.

Do you understand that?

Excess of energies if not released threaten the critical equilibrium of an organism. This too is a need rooted in suffering. The need to release.

Get it?

This is true and I will not argue against it. I will, however, point out to you that how, and if at all one spends this extra energy is the differentia that we have been looking to define.
With that in mind, you may agree with me that it is not the engagement in any particular activity that prevents this suffering, it is the presence of a motivation to engage in any particular activity.
Further, as an example, you can say that it is not the lack of beauty that causes suffering, it is the lack of interest in beauty, or anything else, in possession of excess energy.

pet wrote:

fifi wrote:

We will have the old man understand the meaning of the word spontaneous by the end of this week.
We shall dunk his spongy grey matter in a pool of the stuff.

No. no. No.

Not before I first use my fingers to vigorously massage your brain tissue, probing for malignancies of any type, using my words to lube those dry dry haggish nerve-sheaths, ingeniously ducking away at the massive amounts of queefing that will bound to occur when I squeeze those nerve-endings...

You may have noticed that our bright student finished his assignment early. He decided to grab a dictionary.

But please don't let that stop your massaging... Lower please... lower... hit the spot... I just may fall in love.

Lyssapoo wrote:

fifi wrote:

Lyssapoo wrote:

Recognize, a hypocrite is one who cannot apply his own reasonings to himself. Instead of exposing flaws, you use flagrant hyperbole to overwhelm an answer, and then complain, he doesn't respond.

Doesn't the hyperbole here expose the flaw?
What would limit apaosha from engaging in this hyperbole, given his objective, and if nothing else is at play?

So here we have a demo of the classic nihilist's "either/or" psychology Satyr has touched on so many threads.

If you say you are not for multicultural miscegenation, then you must f--- your sister.

If you say there is no absolute fact, then you have no reason.

If you say there are no absolute truths, then everything is relative.

Either/or. No gradations. No nuances.

Rigid DRY absolutist-binary thinking.

No dear. The hyperbole here is an invitation to those who are not of the multicultural miscegenation inclination, to think about what other factors are at play. From the ridiculous proposal that you should fuck your sister, you will be forced to think that there is more to the subject that to set your goal in reproducing a copy of yourself in your offspring. It is a thought experiment.
Perhaps Mo should add a disclaimer at the end of the post, for the mentally handicapped:
DISCLAIMER: This post does not intend to suggest that you should fuck your sister. It intends to make you think. If you are capable, that is.

Quote :

Fifi states that mixed bag gives a lot more advantage in the light of some coming catastrophe; but have miscegenated  stock produced anything culturally advanced to help us entertain the thought, till that coming catastrophe, these miscegenations would even last that long, and not simply atrophy and die?

What is culturally advanced about today's miscegenation for instance? What have they produced? What have they given us?

I have no interest in judging the cultural accomplishments of any given culture against another under the light of this conversation. That is not only a hugely subjective topic, it is also out of scope. Make yourself a new thread and knock your knickers out, of reliven one of the hundreds that have already been made. Don't forget the lube and the kleenex.

Have you noticed that it is a conversation about fitness?

Quote :

Where does she derive reason in placing her hope in miscegenation?

Where is the experience of history backing this?

As it has been mentioned in this thread, our gene pool is shallow enough to sustain the hypothesis that in the past, a near extinction event narrowed our species to those bearing the specific phenotype which enabled them to survive, while all the other variations perished.
Now imagine (IF YOU ARE CAPABLE) that previous to that event, for whatever reason, we had bred those phenotypic features away from entire populations. What might have happened?

Species prius gens, s'all

Quote :

EDIT: What combination cannot prevail today as valuable, will prevail tom. is akin to the gambler's fallacy.

Not will, dear, might.

What about betting that an event will not occur at all, what is that akin to?

fifi wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

fifi pretending not to understand what Satyr's pointing out in his underlining -

"Freely"

How is something done freely?  free-will? what...?

Let her Define "freely" or be content to gag on her own priapic ignorance. Its looks very thick.

I see you also missed my post form 12:42 at first. It's ok dear, I forgive your haste. You've had fifi stomping around your playpen all week and you are eager to right all the wrongs. It's alright, pat pat pat.

The Hag decided to Gag on her own priapus than define "freely"; ha

Satyr was wrong to call her his canine, her level is more to a cartoon; she's like Precious Pup. She's showing all oral indications its what she watches. She must even laugh like precious, in that wheezing way  

fifi wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

fifi wrote:

A spontaneous action is a free action because it is not rooted in an imperative to act.
Failure to engage in a spontaneous activity will not result in suffering.
This is is what defines a purely aesthetic engagement.

Do you understand that?

Excess of energies if not released threaten the critical equilibrium of an organism. This too is a need rooted in suffering. The need to release.

Get it?

This is true and I will not argue against it. I will, however, point out to you that how, and if at all one spends this extra energy is the differentia that we have been looking to define.

Ha, nice double-back after she first claimed aesthetic pleasure is when all needs have been taken care of, then the spontaneous expression is what it is, as if, that too wasn't rooted in need.

Now it changes tune, the chameleon.

No question of "if at all".

"How" does not define aesthetics, but one's sense of aesthetic.

fifi wrote:

With that in mind, you may agree with me that it is not the engagement in any particular activity that prevents this suffering, it is the presence of a motivation to engage in any particular activity.

duh.

good. now you've defined sensibility. here's a free coupon for lots of chillibeans for you; stick it up on you, you don't want to lose it.

fifi wrote:

Further, as an example, you can say that it is not the lack of beauty that causes suffering, it is the lack of interest in beauty, or anything else, in possession of excess energy.

Thickness, I like how you re-state what I stated to you back at me.

You're welcome. Tuition fees are exempt, since you vehemently insisted you needed my tutorials......badly.....after dark.
I could see you needed it.

It was very thick and protruding.

I like giving head....  to no-brainers.

fifi wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

fifi wrote:

We will have the old man understand the meaning of the word spontaneous by the end of this week.
We shall dunk his spongy grey matter in a pool of the stuff.

No. no. No.

Not before I first use my fingers to vigorously massage your brain tissue, probing for malignancies of any type, using my words to lube those dry dry haggish nerve-sheaths, ingeniously ducking away at the massive amounts of queefing that will bound to occur when I squeeze those nerve-endings...

You may have noticed that our bright student finished his assignment early. He decided to grab a dictionary.

What I noticed was a wormhole. Nothing a constant fingering and stirring will not enlarge to let in the light at the end of the tunnel. I just have to expand it a little. Four fingers. No. A whole fist.

Fifi wrote:

But please don't let that stop your massaging... Lower please... lower... hit the spot... I just may fall in love.

You already have, precious.

Lyssa wrote:

So here we have a demo of the classic nihilist's "either/or" psychology Satyr has touched on so many threads.

Great, I can't wait to see it...

Quote :

If you say you are not for multicultural miscegenation, then you must f--- your sister.

No, if you say that you want to replicate your genes just as you are... then fucking your sister would be the closest you can get, short of cloning yourself. Am I wrong about that?

Quote :

If you say there is no absolute fact, then you have no reason.

Who the fuck said that?

Quote :

If you say there are no absolute truths, then everything is relative.

Who the fuck said that?

Quote :

Either/or. No gradations. No nuances.

Where?

To say, "pride can be bad, if..." is to recognize that whether or not pride is good depends on contextual facts---IF---and so on. That's nuance.

Side point about Nietzsche and self-deception. Nietzsche doesn't praise self-deception as something to be worked towards, he just says it may be a necessity. But he also says, and I'm paraphrasing, that the strength of a spirit is how much truth it can endure. So while you are at home, trying to be a god, keep that in mind when you're praising the valuableness of self-deception, ignorance, or whatever else.