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.
Thickness, Reproducing a copy of yourself, the closest approximation of you is what every Healthy, Self-affirmative people will. The self-haters will instinctively, inevitably think otherwise.
Fifi wrote:
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?
Fitness Can be a subjective topic; but its not how Recid. was going about it. Have You noticed the context?
I don't need kleenex, I like leaving trails for sniffing pups, they love it.
What is your Subjective stand on cultural accomplishments, dear?
fifi wrote:
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
Suddenly it switches to "objective", now?
Thickness says, "our gene pool is shallow" - How? What objective standards did she use?
fifi wrote:
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?
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...
If you are that sincere, you should read the original thread. Its called "Nihilism", and is just a click away.
Quote :
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?
First consult with fifi if you are going to now claim that it was not a hyperbole. Then get back to me.
Quote :
Quote :
If you say there is no absolute fact, then you have no reason.
Who the fuck said that?
Its the pattern of the either/or scenario, like you displayed yesterday,,,, if one doesn't know thyself, then one immediately is deceive thyself.
Quote :
Quote :
If you say there are no absolute truths, then everything is relative.
Who the fuck said that?
ssshhh
Quote :
Quote :
Either/or. No gradations. No nuances.
Where?
You know where.
Quote :
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.
Nuance is about degrees. Its saying, the closest approximation of myself that grants me the best fit is.....
Quote :
Side point about Nietzsche and self-deception. Nietzsche doesn't praise self-deception as something to be worked towards,
That is not what I said, is it, Liar? Esp. after I stated, "this may not be the highest value or the noblest value..."
Go back and read.
Forgetfulness is necessary for health is what he said is what I said.
No freedom. I am thrown into the world, without my consent.
We are the sum of our ancestors. When a man affirms himself, he affirms his birth in his child and his child's child and so forth. He consents to his own welcoming and being welcomed ('well' comed, not thrown) in this world. This same world as it is 'for' being as it is. In a way of speaking, there are no accidents.
Quote :
Ah sweet resentment. What man can accept his own death without a hint of anger? An overman?
We become uninvested in something when it is given freely. This is human nature. Because we become uninvested, we feel less bonded, because no cost is paid either emotionally, spiritually, physically,... self is invested only when there is strife, a price to pay. What doesn't press on us, doesn't im-press on us either, and they slow fade to oblivion, from memory. The maximum one could feel for things given freely is gratitude. But gratitude is how a noble being interprets as "I don't have to compete here, invest here,,, I can pay with gratitude." To be grateful is to acknowledge that you cannot rise up to that level, rise up to life, to the extent of howmuch ever it has conferred.
"Learning how to pay homage. - Men have to learn to pay homage j ust as they have to learn to feel contempt. Anyone who breaks new paths and has led many people onto new paths discovers with amazement how clumsy and poor those many are at expressing their gratitude; indeed, how seldom gratitude is able to express itself at all. It is as though whenever gratitude wants to speak, something gets caught in her throat so that she just clears her throat and falls silent clearing her throat. The way in which a thinker comes to sense the effects of his thoughts and their reorganizing and unsettling power is almost a comedy; it seems at times as if those who have been affected basically feel insulted and can only express what they take to be their threatened independence through a welter of incivilities. Entire generations are needed to invent merely a polite convention for thanks; and only very late comes that time when even gratitude has acquired a kind of spirit and genius; by then, someone is usually also around to be the great recipient of the gratitude, not only for what good he himself has done, but mostly for what his predecessors have slowly heaped up as a treasure of the highest and best." [JW, 100]
It takes generations, for the presence of a genius that stands eye-to-eye with life, to enable it to forego its resentment. It takes a deep self-investment to love what we feel mere gratitude towards. Sometimes it takes generations to really love life and not just feel grateful to it.
If Life were given freely and one lived on forever, if ever technology made something like that possible, cheated it a little longer, there would be no self-investment. No emotional costs, no binding, no memoies, no sharp consciousness even.
Life forever is as good as death.
Existence is like being born in this world and discovering a bullet lodged deep in my head.
Living with it is pain. Removing it would mean certain death.
Self-consciousness is like that bullet.
But,
"The end of a melody is not its goal, and yet if a melody has not reached its end, it has not reached its goal. A parable." [N.]
We become "noise" anyways when we do not "die at the right time"... We would probably kill ourselves when we cannot experience ourselves as a melody, should we live on forever.
The endings we leave as us, should be the best starting points for someone.
We can find the power to well come ourselves in the best combinations we can achieve, to give ourselves a new design, a new life, a new adventure to live out.
Its the pattern of the either/or scenario, like you displayed yesterday,,,, if one doesn't know thyself, then one immediately is deceive thyself.
If one refuses to know thyself, then one insists on ignorance about thyself. That's an analytic truth. If you have a better title than "Deceive Thyself" to represent that, then I'm open to suggestions.
Everything you say is riddled with oppositions like that. Health, weakness. Male, female. Liberal, conservative. Modern, not-modern. Strong, weak. Etc. Partly, that's ordinary language. We understand what a word means by distinguishing it from what it doesn't. To use language in that way---as you obviously do---doesn't mean you are reifying concepts, or participating in nihilism (in any ordinary definition of nihilism). Seriously, rather than make up what you think nihilism is... either respect the history of the word's usage, or else say why you have to change it.
Lyssa wrote:
If you are that sincere, you should read the original thread. Its called "Nihilism", and is just a click away.
You quoted me, and then claimed you had an example of nihilistic or dualistic thinking. If you are sincere, then justify what comes out of your face.
I have read the thread "Organic Nihilism". Ironically, I see the same kind of dualistic oppositions. (Top-down versus Bottom-up). What is your point?
Quote :
That is not what I said, is it, Liar? Esp. after I stated, "this may not be the highest value or the noblest value..."
Did I say that you said it?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Can someone explain the relationship of spontaneity and freedom as it relates to aesthetics?
The common usage of the term "spontaneous" usually means an emergence which those experiencing it cannot explain, and so they imply that it emerges for no reason, just because. Freedom supports this position, if taken as an absolute. i connected this common usage with my experience with it when describing such paranormal phenomena as 'spontaneous combustion,' that always implied a negative source, an inexplicable occurrence...a mystery best understood by surrendering to its impact, and never doubting it. A religious stance.
Let us take the dictionary definitions separately:
Definition 1 wrote:
1.Coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
The only phenomena I know of that come about with no effort are those we call "negative": cold, dark, death, weakness, chaos, ignorance. Effort need not be immediate. If I train myself in the Martial Arts to react instinctively to a threat, the effort is mostly invested in my past...in my training. A plant grows fruits with effort, and most of it is inherited as naturally selected dispositions. The trial and error of evolution is effort. This is not free. It is determination.
A bird does not put any perceivable effort into growing wings. The effort is automatic...and inherited. It is spontaneous but not free. There is a need being served. It does not do so "just because". The effort has been made beforehand, and it inherits the consequences.
Appreciation of beauty is the result of the organism's essence as ordering. Ordering is effort. All ordering requires effort, what I call the positive phenomena: heat, light, life, order, life, thinking. All these are spontaneous but not free....and not void of effort.
Life, and not only humankind, appreciates, needs, is inspired, is moved, by whatever reminds it of itself, or promises itself more order. Order touches it in its deepest part of itself. To reach that level took effort. The appreciation is not free. It is an appreciation of something it covets, it considers superior, attractive. Not "just because" but "because of...." Philosophy, thinking is what man uses to determine what this "because..." is.
Not just is, not just happens, not just spontaneous, not just because, not just anything. This is not only easy but anti-philosophical. The Greeks did not look upon the world and say "shit happens"...or it happens spontaneously...without exploring what this is.
Why did you hit him? I did so spontaneously.
This says nothing. It pretends to be saying something but it is really saying nothing. Might as well place "god" there.
Premeditation does not apply. Many things are not premeditated and they emerge, they dominate the mind. Instinctive behavior is not free, not void of selfish motives, not emerging with no effort. Subconscious drives are not free.
Definition 2 wrote:
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
Sudden and impulses are not free. They are pre-programmed automatic reactions...determined.
Definition 3 wrote:
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
Natural does not mean free. It means sum of all that precedes, all nurturing...determination is not independence. I like salts and fats, and sugars not because I choose to but because my nature is such where these are elements I need, and dependent upon.
Definition 4 wrote:
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
Growing naturally is not freedom. Something grows in accordance with a genetic programming. Freedom here, only relates to human intervention.
Definition 5 wrote:
5.produced by natural process.
See above.
I've offers my positions on what this appreciation is, why it comes about, and what purpose it serves. I did not say 'just because' nor did I settle for the easy "it emerges" spontaneously.
My error with Phoneee was that I gave her too little credit. Her agreement with her boy-toy Moo , was superficial...as she is more clever than I thought.
Her usage of the word spontaneous I mistook for the usual, common, mis-usage, which implies this inexplicable, mysterious, emergence out of nothing...this just emerges, it just is, just because. Now I know what she's been agreeing with me all along, because the word spontaneous, as it is defined in the dictionary supports my positions that the appreciation of beauty is not free, not independent, not disinterested, not disconnected from reality, the past, but a necessity, brought about by survival of the fittest.
I've offered my theory as to why and how it emerges spontaneously...and Phonee tricked me into believing she disagreed with me, with her agreement with Moo who claimed a "just because" proposition. I thought her usage of the term "spontaneous" was akin to Moo's "just because"... and that she implied that she did not require any added exploration as to what this spontaneous appreciation is, or how and why it comes about. I thought she was satisfied with the term "spontaneous" as a final resolution to the problem of the aesthetic feeling.
But she knew the definition of the word and was tricking me. Sly girls.
In fact she does know why the aesthetic appreciation emerges and why...don't you Phonee? All we must do is sit back and let her teach us, by listening to her explanation as to what produces this spontaneous bubbling up, from whence it comes and why. I know she knows it's contingent, so all we must do is allow her the freedom to explain her positions, which she keeps hidden....letting them spontaneously spill out of her in short bursts of magic.
If she cannot then she must be shy, or a phony.
I can't imagine that she would be satisfied with the philosophical stance that something occurs 'just because'...'because' being what explains it, with her version of it: the spontaneous.
If man did this with everything then where would science be; where would philosophy be? What is thunder and how does it come about? It's spontaneous, and it just happens.
Just because is no explanation...it does not even try to be a theory, and spontaneous says nothing. It simply implies a mysterious source which need not be questioned.
I humbly apologize for misjudging Phonee. I promise to be more attentive to her needs, from now on.
I like the use of the word cost as the antithesis of the word free. One can debate freedom from the perspectives that we are force or that we are forced, but never that we are cost. As I understand it from reading the above, cost reflects what has been paid for us to have become what we are and will be paid for us to become what we will be.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
"Cost" is about environment...the product of interactivity.
For the resident hedonist Phonee:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Something I wrote years ago, posted it on ILP, and in other places.
I guess "just because", and the "spontaneity" is the end of the line for this type of "reasoning." A loopy-loop of frustrated temper tantrums, delivered with a calm aloofness.
I like the use of the word cost as the antithesis of the word free. One can debate freedom from the perspectives that we are force or that we are forced, but never that we are cost. As I understand it from reading the above, cost reflects what has been paid for us to have become what we are and will be paid for us to become what we will be.
That is one way of looking at it, I suppose. In the context of this conversation, we can think of the cost as the suffering caused by the failure to act. And thus a "free" action would be one that does not imply that cost.
And now for their next number, old man and his trusty sidekick, the pooch, will attempt to demonstrate that there is no such thing. In 3... 2... 1...
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Still seeking my attentions, Phonee? You are becoming a nuisance.
Let me pay extra careful attention to your verbal acrobatics.
Phonee wrote:
And thus a "free" action would be one that does not imply that cost.
Are you insinuating that a bitch that risks life and limb (cost) to save her puppies, or to be penetrated by a bigger, stronger, male dog, so as to have those puppies, is free from the awareness of the costs, or that there is no cost because she does not recognize it? Is the outcome of the puppies being born, something she must know when she is submitting to the drive to be penetrated, or when she rushes forth to save them?
If I enter a river with piranha's and I am ignorant of the fact, does the potential cost disappear? Is ignorance, stupidity, "freedom" for you?
Is a mind that does not know what it is saying, speaking freely? Is freedom being free of awareness of what one is implying...animal cognizance? For instance, if, like scientists tell us, females during the most fertile period in their menstrual cycle tend to wear more revealing outfits to go out, is their ignorance of this connection a "liberation" from the costs, or from their own insinuating sexual projections and subconscious motives/interests? Is naivete, innocence, a form of Independence? If a female mysteriously finds the tall, dark, and handsome dolt, charming, and does not know why after a few months she finds him dull, is this freedom from determinism, or from a motive?
Let me ask the same question from a different perspective: Are you free from reality, Phonee, because you are ignorant and dumb, and happy to stay like that? Does the cost go away if you do not imply it, or are unaware that it is there or that you are, in fact, implying it?
An animal does not know what the connection is between its seasonal sexual impulse and the birth of offspring some time later....does this free it from the cost/benefits, associated with this behavior?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Sometimes "just because", and "I don't know, I acted on impulse, spontaneously." means "I am happy to not know, and to not explore why I acted and what motivated me, even if I was not cognizant of it.
You know, like any animal: surrender to the impulse. Not to understand it, and try to control it through this comprehension, but to simply settle for it as it.
Why? Just because. I am spontaneous...and this is part of my feminine mystique.
Ah, the mentally challenged. Here, I will be as clear as I can.
pooch wrote:
The Hag decided to Gag on her own priapus than define "freely"; ha
phoneutria waaaaay up in this same thread wrote:
... not rooted in an imperative to act
As you can see, I am using in my own paraphrasing, a common dictionary meaning of the word, once again.
Meriam Webster entry for 'Freedom' wrote:
1: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
For now on, both of you, first read what I wrote. Then, if you don't know what I am saying, pick up a dictionary. Saves us a lot of time, and you a lot of embarrassment.
pooch 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?
pooch wrote:
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?
fifi wrote:
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.
pooch wrote:
Ha, nice double-back after she first claimed aesthetic pleasure is when all needs have been taken care of,
No, I said that that this is a condition for aesthetic pleasure to exist, not that it is what aesthetic pleasure is.
pooch wrote:
then the spontaneous expression is what it is, as if, that too wasn't rooted in need.
Now it changes tune, the chameleon.
Sigh, I'm disappointed already. I will be veeeery clear. I will use every day life examples and talk as though I am talking to my lil niece. My lil niece named pooch. I will put a lot of words here. Let me break down three small sentences into a page long post, to suit you and old man's incapacity to read meanings.
Ok, so excess energy, once all bodily needs are satisfied. If not spent, suffering. In other words, if you have energy to spend and idle time, and you don't spend it, you get bored.
I may find myself using that time to read, or maybe... looking at pictures of cats wearing funny hats. Maybe I will do nothing at all, just sit here, stare at a wall. Maybe I can't find anything interesting to do, so I will instead pick up any ole piece of paper and start folding it into a crane. Someone might come to me and say "why do you waste time like this, time you could be using for *insert-useful-activity*?"
The difference between answering "I am just bored", "I am just trying to avoid boredom", or answering "This activity engages me, I am entertained", is a matter of my own interest for the activity. In other words, rather or not I am intrinsically motivated to participate in this activity.
Thus you may conclude that the avoidance of suffering is not in the activities, themselves. It is in the presence of intrinsic motivation... in the capacity to act freely.
Would you like me to define intrinsic motivation for you, sir and madam, or would you like to look at a dictionary?
pooch wrote:
No question of "if at all".
"How" does not define aesthetics, but one's sense of aesthetic.
Let me say this again: Not all pleasures are aesthetic. Therefore, the question of "how" leisure time is spent is relevant.
pooch wrote:
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.
Very well, then you agree that, in presence of motivation, or sensibility, or inclination, or propensity, or impulse, or whatever word of your preference, failure to engage in any particular activity, as long as he is free to engage in it, does not result in suffering.
pooch wrote:
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.
Nope I am pretty sure that what you said amounts to the lack of beauty causes suffering. Since it's rooted in need and all. I LOVE to dance, I could just get up and start shaking right about now. But I won't...... TORMENT! lol
pooch wrote:
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.
Well, dear, give it where it counts. *unzips*
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
As you can see, I am using in my own paraphrasing, a common dictionary meaning of the word, once again.
Is the dictionary a philosophical document?
Meriam Webster entry for 'Freedom' wrote:
1: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Tell us about one phenomenon which is so. Show us what freedom looks like. Point to yourself. Name one phenomenon which adheres to the definition.
Here, allow me to help you: Independent....is another word for it. Point to one phenomenon which is not dependent, not constrained, not coerced...is absolutely free. Because being somewhat free is like being somewhat pregnant. Nobody is doubting degrees...you evoked the magical term "spontaneous" in conjunction with free. But you do not define either, outside of the formal dictionary definition....because we know why.
Words are tools, dear...not answers. If it were not so then philosophy would be meaningless as a practice. All we would do is study linguistics.
phonee wrote:
For now on, both of you, first read what I wrote. Then, if you don't know what I am saying, pick up a dictionary. Saves us a lot of time, and you a lot of embarrassment.
You use words, phonee, dear...you don't say anything.
Now, before deferring to the book of words, the Bible, read what I wrote:
Old Man wrote:
Are you insinuating that a bitch that risks life and limb (cost) to save her puppies, or to be penetrated by a bigger, stronger, male dog, so as to have those puppies, is free from the awareness of the costs, or that there is no cost because she does not recognize it? Is the outcome of the puppies being born, something she must know when she is submitting to the drive to be penetrated, or when she rushes forth to save them?
If I enter a river with piranha's and I am ignorant of the fact, does the potential cost disappear? Is ignorance, stupidity, "freedom" for you?
Is a mind that does not know what it is saying, speaking freely? Is freedom being free of awareness of what one is implying...animal cognizance? For instance, if, like scientists tell us, females during the most fertile period in their menstrual cycle tend to wear more revealing outfits to go out, is their ignorance of this connection a "liberation" from the costs, or from their own insinuating sexual projections and subconscious motives/interests? Is naivete, innocence, a form of Independence? If a female mysteriously finds the tall, dark, and handsome dolt, charming, and does not know why after a few months she finds him dull, is this freedom from determinism, or from a motive?
Let me ask the same question from a different perspective: Are you free from reality, Phonee, because you are ignorant and dumb, and happy to stay like that? Does the cost go away if you do not imply it, or are unaware that it is there or that you are, in fact, implying it?
An animal does not know what the connection is between its seasonal sexual impulse and the birth of offspring some time later....does this free it from the cost/benefits, associated with this behavior?
I know the idea of you simply adhering to Dictionary definitions is what you call thinking, but philosophy is not that, is it? It's not JUST that, is it?
I know you want to remain there on the "just because"....it's spontaneous, without going further, but here we do something whacky...we go further and further. We go as far as we can.
If you are not interested I have the perfect forum for you. Simple mind, a word can refer to a supernatural fantasy, an abstraction with no reference in reality....like Godzilla. Defining the word does not make it real.
Here we connect words to reality - we attack the noumenon to the phenomenon... Because if we don't then we lower ourselves to your level...where equality is fantastic, dreamy, and surrendering to hedonism is a-fuckin-mazing...pass the bong, dude!
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Now go back and read my definition of positive/negative, as it relates to effort, energy.
One more time, dense cookie: When the brain, which has evolved to serve needs, is liberated from its role - momentarily and partially, it feels lost. Now it feels need as boredom, a desire to focus, to find a new purpose....to engage and work. Mind being a dynamic, a process, a flow.
Some, like your mind, seek gratification for this ennui in indulgence, hedonism...returning to the needs gratified and then revving them up a notch. Other seek gratification in creativity, in artistic explorations...in self-expression...
Boredom is a form of discomfort, simpleton. The brain being a dynamic organ needs to project its energies...focus them upon an object/objective. If it cannot it becomes agitated, the contained energies build up, like libido. Actually they libidinal energies and this creativity are connected. Your ilk, seeks satisfaction in inebriation....numbing the energies with food, alcohol, sex or whatever....pop culture...etc. It's because ...BECAUSE - see how it words> not just because....despite pretending to be enlightened, your essence is dominated by the primal. You need to explore the primal needs, which are satiated in a world of superfluity and sheltering. So we indulge again...you over-indulge, seeking greater and greater stimulation to get rid of your boredom...which is given to you, you are not responsible for....and like all things inherited, rights given, not earned, you do not appreciate leisure and so you squander it.
Others who do appreciate it direct the now exceeds mental energies towards a creative object/objective, so as to deal with their pressures.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Bitch thinks philosophy is about dictionary definitions.
Bitch thinks she proves something by referring to a book.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a modern is.
What have I said: People of the Book, by the Book, for the Book.
Referring, deferring to what? Yes, back to mental abstractions. They can't tell what is real and what a human abstraction.
Here are some examples: Freedom Equality Immortality One Nil Thing Beginning End
All these words, well defined, have no reference outside the human brain. Pure theoretical abstractions. Pure noumena, with no phenomenal connection.
These types can now select how to use them. Sometimes literally, sometimes not....depending on their motive. They are flexible precisely BECAUSE, they have no connection to anything outside the brain. They are trapped in a noumenal looping, free because they can use words that are fantasies, as if they were not.
Like "because" or "spontaneous". Notice the word alludes to my positions...but she does not pursue. She uses the word, sometimes pretending she is using the dictionary definition and then using it as an absolute, some kind of final answer. Not how what, this energy is that comes forth when stimulated, not just because...but it just is, just because. It comes forth for no reason...just because.
Why do some fear the dark? Just because. Fear bubbling up spontaneously. Why do we love? Just because....our emotions produces with no motive, no reason, no conscious or unconscious cause.
This is how a word can become purified, deified.
Life a God. Why god, if He is the prime mover, then who created Him?
No, he is just because...He emerges spontaneously.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
I have so many questions. I wonder about things. Like, like....I wonder what life is.
I know!!! I'll look it up. Google....open.....type L...I...F...E... Ah there it is: Life:
Dictionary wrote:
n. noun
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
Living organisms considered as a group.
plant life; marine life.
adj. adjective
Of or relating to animate existence; involved in or necessary for living.
life processes.
Continuing for a lifetime; lifelong.
life partner; life imprisonment.
Using a living model as a subject for an artist.
a life sculpture.
Makes sense. I am satisfied...I feel pleasure. Pleasure? I wonder what pleasure is. Well, let me look it up:
Dictionary wrote:
pleas·ure [plezh-er] Show IPA noun 1. the state or feeling of being pleased. 2. enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight. 3. worldly or frivolous enjoyment: the pursuit of pleasure. 4. recreation or amusement; diversion; enjoyment: Are you traveling on business or for pleasure? 5. sensual gratification.
There ya go. I feel smarter already. Smart? Smart...intelligent, intelligence.... What is that?
Dictionary wrote:
in·tel·li·gence [in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA noun 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. 3. the faculty of understanding. 4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. 5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information.
Hmmmm...now for something more complex. Time.... What, the fuck, is time? Type...type....type....click...enter....bingo! Wow...I know it was complex...
Dictionary wrote:
time [tahym] Show IPA noun 1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. 2. duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration. 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time. 5. a particular period considered as distinct from other periods: Youth is the best time of life. adjective 27. of, pertaining to, or showing the passage of time. 28. (of an explosive device) containing a clock so that it will detonate at the desired moment: a time bomb. 29. Commerce . payable at a stated period of time after presentment: time drafts or notes. 30. of or pertaining to purchases on the installment plan, or with payment postponed. verb (used with object), timed, tim·ing. 31. to measure or record the speed, duration, or rate of: to time a race. 32. to fix the duration of: The proctor timed the test at 15 minutes. 33. to fix the interval between (actions, events, etc.): They timed their strokes at six per minute. 34. to regulate (a train, clock, etc.) as to time. 35. to appoint or choose the moment or occasion for; schedule: He timed the attack perfectly. verb (used without object), timed, tim·ing. 36. to keep time; sound or move in unison. Idioms 37. against time, in an effort to finish something within a limited period: We worked against time to get out the newspaper. 38. ahead of time, before the time due; early: The building was completed ahead of time. 39. at one time, a. once; in a former time: At one time they owned a restaurant. b. at the same time; at once: They all tried to talk at one time. 40. at the same time, nevertheless; yet: I'd like to try it, but at the same time I'm a little afraid. 41. at times, at intervals; occasionally: At times the city becomes intolerable.
Ha! Philosophy my ass. I am gratified....my mind expanded, my understanding fulfilled.... Time to cook and eat.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
1. Why do you require an example of an absolute? 2. Is it because you are making 'coercion' or 'dependence' into your own absolute?
I'm asking for an exploration of a term, from your girlfriend, boy.
For me "just because" is not satisfying...nor is, shit happens...nor is "it's spontaneous." Exploration means one goes deeper, one becomes more precise, one sees beneath the surfaces, one's mind and understanding becomes sophisticated.
An infant is satisfied with "just because"....and a coward settles for "it's spontaneous"....but neither of these sentences says much of anything. It implies, and is satisfied with the surface. I was never satisfied with the dictionary, the text, the common usage of words. Words like "human" and/or 'equality"...phrases like "Appearances are superficial" and/or "We are all brothers"...
For example, boy...if I were a detective and some woman told me that a man died because of spontaneous combustion, I would be interested in the phenomenon. What sparked it? How? What mechanism was in play? What natural causes produced it? What internal forces resulted in this heap of smoldering man-flesh?
You, and your phoneee girlfriend, presumably, are satisfied with the voo-doo explanation. Just because. Magic. Not enough for me.
What is pleasure? Gratification. Satisfaction.... Allow me to consult the holy Bible of modern text...Dictionary, the other Book:
Dictionary wrote:
pleas·ure [plezh-er] Show IPA noun 1. the state or feeling of being pleased. 2. enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight. 3. worldly or frivolous enjoyment: the pursuit of pleasure. 4. recreation or amusement; diversion; enjoyment: Are you traveling on business or for pleasure? 5. sensual gratification.
I feel satisfied already....gratified, pleased. Philosophy for retards.
Go back where real philosophy is practiced boy...go back to ILP. What the fuck brought you here? Impulse? Spontaneity? Some pleasure seeking with no needs behind it?
Go back to your life. I apologize for overwriting the last part of your post. Accept my apology or don't...who the fuck cares?
Cares? What does that mean? Excuse me while I look it up.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
Point to one phenomenon which is not dependent, not constrained, not coerced...is absolutely free.
1. Why do you require an example of an absolute? 2. Is it because you are making 'coercion' or 'dependence' into your own absolute?
- - -
Some people think that when you apply a term to literally everything (i.e., absolute-ize it)---as you would when you say, 'Everything is dependent'---then you render the concept of 'dependence' meaningless. Something that applies to everything, consequently applies to nothing meaningfully. We understand concepts by contrasting them with what they are not, discriminating, opposing, etc.
Can you define the antonyms of 'freedom' that you just used (coercion, dependence, constraint, etc) without also using the term you were just insisting be defined for you? Supposing you were to try, I suspect that a definition of 'free' would fall right out of what you say. Conceptually entailed. That's how language works, isn't it?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Existence is activity. Activity is the absence of the static, the complete, the whole, the singular, the absolute. If you choose to redefine movement, activity, as a complete, then you must abstract it into a thing, an absolute.
Life emerges within this flux, this towards chaos...chaos=randomness. Life is ordering. Life is a (re)action to this entropy.
If this organizing, this organism, succeeds it grows, it becomes more complex. It is constantly resisting attrition, the flow towards chaos.
When it reaches a certain sophistication it produces consciousness...sensation is the first stage. It feels this attrition as need...Flux is constant, ergo need is constant, as it is a manifestation of a lack, a lack of an absolute static state. Suffering/pain is an extreme sensation of need. Pleasure is a momentary satiation where the need falls beneath consciousnesses. It is a product of strength, health, power.
This liberates the mind from the sensation of need. Feeding the need is easy, and so the mind begins to take it for granted. In modern systems this superfluity, sheltering is the given...not earned. The reasons we will not explore now.
This liberates the brain from its original role. Not absolutely but in degree. These liberated energies now lack focus, direction, what we call purpose, meaning. What the mind does with them is determined by the particular organism's genetics, its quality. It is not chosen, but a probability is established.
Simpler minds seek escape, distraction, an increase in the gratification scale to re-experience the pleasure of alleviating need/suffering. They may even manufacture need so as to then gratify it. Like a drug addict, every dose decrease the pleasure, the numbness...it has to be increased.
Modernity....the entertainment industry. Hyperbole. See movies, porn, music. Everything is inflated so as to maintain the buzz.
Escapism.
Contentment is the condition of having more than enough aggregate energies at your disposal to meet your ongoing needs.
More sophisticated minds turn this exceeds mental energy inwards. They question what they are and why they act. Nihilism begins...but so does art.
The most brilliant art is the product of need/suffering. Modern art is stale, shallow, because it is created by minds who are sheltered, whoa re given superfluity.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Some people think that when you apply a term to literally everything (i.e., absolute-ize it)---as you would when you say, 'Everything is dependent'---then you render the concept of 'dependence' meaningless. Something that applies to everything, consequently applies to nothing meaningfully. We understand concepts by contrasting them with what they are not, discriminating, opposing, etc.
Can you define the antonyms of 'freedom' that you just used (coercion, dependence, constraint, etc) without also using the term you were just insisting be defined for you? Supposing you were to try, I suspect that a definition of 'free' would fall right out of what you say. Conceptually entailed. That's how language works, isn't it?
Ah, you saved it...good.
Independence - Dependence.
One has no reference outside the ambiguity of the abstraction, and the dictionary definition...the other is all around us. One refers to an experience, a phenomenon, the other to a noumenon, an ideal.
The moment you ask "What is freedom" you've already presupposed it. To discredit it, negate it, one must then accept the presupposition.
Like the term "truth"...."absolute"...."one." Nonsensical when taken literally. To contradict them you must fall into the nonsense.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
One refers to an experience, a phenomenon, the other to a noumenon, an ideal.
Do you not, phenomenologically, experience yourself as sometimes free, in the world?
Even if determinism is true, that is clearly not your experience of this world. In fact, that perspective just is one that attempts to step outside yourself, and see the world (and yourself) through nobody's eyes.
If you absolutely insist on a definition that is compatible with both your experience, as well as the cold dead abstract and extra-perspectival theory of determinism, you could take a Nietzschean path... where freedom is something like identification with the commanding drives.
But the point about language---since language works by contrasting and opposing and discriminating---I'm not sure if you can throw out one half of a distinction, without also losing the other. It's like the theme song from that hit 80's TV show called Married With Children with Al Bundy... "You can't have one without the othhheerrrr"
One refers to an experience, a phenomenon, the other to a noumenon, an ideal.
Do you not, phenomenologically, experience yourself as sometimes free, in the world?
Even if determinism is true, that is clearly not your experience of this world. In fact, that perspective just is one that attempts to step outside yourself, and see the world (and yourself) through nobody's eyes.
If you absolutely insist on a definition that is compatible with both your experience, as well as the cold dead abstract and extra-perspectival theory of determinism, you could take a Nietzschean path... where freedom is something like identification with the commanding drives.
But the point about language---since language works by contrasting and opposing and discriminating---I'm not sure if you can throw out one half of a distinction, without also losing the other. It's like the theme song from that hit 80's TV show called Married With Children with Al Bundy... "You can't have one without the othhheerrrr"
I do not choose my point of departure arbitrarily.
For me strength is a measure of weakness...like life is defined in relation to death. Knowledge is a measure of ignorance. Independence/Freedom a measure of dependence.
I've explained why. Life can only occur in a towards entropy. Life is always an ordering...as is consciousness.
Looking back is a towards near-absolute order...and looking forwards is a towards near-absolute disorder... These terms are methods of orienting the organism. Artistic devices. Yet not totally irrelevant or incorrect...if one connects them to something experienced. Like all categories, and binary dualities, they are tools.
Words symbolize these tools. The tools are meant to increase understanding. But, like all tools, if used incorrectly instead of increasing, constructing, they decrease, destroy, understanding.
I've gone through why the towards entropy is more honest and more precise. Even if we assume, to close the circle, that entropy is increasing and decreasing at the same time, life, as we know it, can only experience the towards entropy. So the human condition is always in relation to increasing chaos.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
If I have someone in a body cast that I control by my remote control...
Is that person 'free' in relation to me? Or am I free in relation to that person?
Let's not throw out an ordinary, relational, worldly notion of 'freedom', just to end absolutizing some concept of its opposite. Because guess what that would mean?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
So, all value judgments, including that of "freedom" is a relationship. Attachment, interaction, dependence...not "independent".... Same goes for beauty.
Is beauty absolute? No....it is a relationship between observer and observed. The observer finds something in the otherness which offers him a benefit, a possibility, a potential. A towards.
The slave/master relationship can only be detached from. Both the one in the cast and you who needs to control him are dependent on each other.
The opposite of this is not master to slave, and/or slave to master...but independence/dependence where indifference is a detachment...a towards the godly. both master and slave are dependent on each other from their value judgment. Indifference is a disconnection from both. Both care...to not care would be in opposition to both.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
As you can see, I am using in my own paraphrasing, a common dictionary meaning of the word, once again.
Meriam Webster entry for 'Freedom' wrote:
1: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
I wonder if you do drugs or if its just heavy ear-wax, or something, that you can't seem to hear what you are saying... which is, on the one hand you just acknowledged yesterday that even spontaneity from the release of excess energies Is rooted in necessity, and now you regress back defining the state of being free as the absence of necessity?
Can you see it, precious pup?
fifi wrote:
fifi wrote:
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.
Lyssa wrote:
Ha, nice double-back after she first claimed aesthetic pleasure is when all needs have been taken care of
No, I said that that this is a condition for aesthetic pleasure to exist, not that it is what aesthetic pleasure is.
Simply breaking a sentence as if you said something critical to correct me,,, when I said, "aesthetic pleasre is WHEN" --- it means a condition, precious.
You did not correct me.
Fifi wrote:
The difference between answering "I am just bored", "I am just trying to avoid boredom", or answering "This activity engages me, I am entertained", is a matter of my own interest for the activity. In other words, rather or not I am intrinsically motivated to participate in this activity.
And this is why I said what you defined is an aesthetic sensibility, not aesthetics.
fifi wrote:
Thus you may conclude that the avoidance of suffering is not in the activities, themselves. It is in the presence of intrinsic motivation... in the capacity to act freely.
Again, this is only an aesthetic sensibility; in reality sitting and idling away is not the avoidance of suffering as stagnation is a degree of death, but for some people sleeping away life is enough to avoid suffering. Other terms for sleep - alcohol, Xt., narcotics, etc.
You say suffering is avoided in being 'capable' to act freely; capacity for a will to organize itself, to give itself form, is rooted in suffering again - the need to give form, "intrinsic motivation" is a pressing need - just because it doesn't appear so in the conscious doesn't mean there is no war of the drives in the sub-conscious. To be able to, or to feel the urge to create a goal for yourself, demands that I rise up to the task, demands that my will be organized, and every organization is a suffering. It takes cost, energy to maintain an order.
fifi wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
"How" does not define aesthetics, but one's sense of aesthetic.
Let me say this again: Not all pleasures are aesthetic. Therefore, the question of "how" leisure time is spent is relevant.
Are you going to repeat back to me what I said; is this fun for you?
Its because 'how' is relevant, I say it denotes a sensibility of aesthetiC, not aesthetics; the latter is a Science of sense-perception, whle the former denotes the ability for a sense-perception.
fifi wrote:
Very well, then you agree that, in presence of motivation, or sensibility, or inclination, or propensity, or impulse, or whatever word of your preference, failure to engage in any particular activity, as long as he is free to engage in it, does not result in suffering.
Nope. I only agreed aesthetics demands a focus, a channelling of the excess energies in a direction. Discussing that direction shifts us to sensibility, which is another issue. I do not agree that a focussed will is Not rooted in need, in suffering, for the reason given in the prv.
I'll add one more point. Just because I am capable of acting "freely" in one direction does not take away the fact, that this channelling occurs at the downplaying of other drives that are equally competing. There is a suppression, a repression, a necessary suffering that doesn't enter our conscious; I say necessary, because a dominanting drive or hierrachy can only be maintained by locking the others down in ranks. Do you get it, precious?
fifi wrote:
Nope I am pretty sure that what you said amounts to the lack of beauty causes suffering. Since it's rooted in need and all. I LOVE to dance, I could just get up and start shaking right about now. But I won't...... TORMENT! lol
Maybe you'd look better dancing when you have a spine first, no, precious? Either you accuse me straight on, or be humble and ask what I said again if your thickness didn't understand, or be very quiet. I'm not going to argue with phantoms like "pretty sure"...
fifi wrote:
Well, dear, give it where it counts. *unzips*
That's a very small purse to give you head; mine's real big,, zip it back, dear. People might mistake my *blush*[/quote]
So, all value judgments, including that of "freedom" is a relationship. Attachment, interaction, dependence...not "independent".... Same goes for beauty.
Yes, I think so. ---"Value" is a strange thing that happens when you mix the ingredients of a physiological creature, with a physical world. An emergent property, in their relationship, you could say.
But when you recognize that 'value' (or 'beauty' as an example) depends on that relationship between you and the world... you also admit that 'value' is in some sense not simply dependent just on you. You could use the term "independent" to express that idea.
None of that means that value hangs around after all lights go out, in the universe.
But I do think that if you tried to define 'beauty' focusing only on yourself---your subjectivity---you'd miss part of the truth. To twist a phrase from Nietzsche... truth is a woman---you'll lose her when you act like you can't.
Yes, I think so. ---"Value" is a strange thing that happens when you mix the ingredients of a physiological creature, with a physical world. An emergent property, in their relationship, you could say.
But when you recognize that 'value' (or 'beauty' as an example) depends on that relationship between you and the world... you also admit that 'value' is in some sense not simply dependent just on you. You could use the term "independent" to express that idea.
Even if it was, somehow, not simply subjective, it would not be experienced as such. Or really, I would argue, believed as such, whatever one protested later. In the example of Beauty, the beautiful object is referred to that way grammatically - with the quality attached to the noun - because of our experience. One might, later, have the meta-thought that an experiencer could have had that feeling with anything, but the original aesthetic appreciation -one's own - is likely impervious to this thought, rightly or not.
as an aside: It also seems to me Beauty is an end, not just a possibility or potential.
I am hesitating over the Word relationship. Is this taking the object as necessarily having certain qualities and/or taking the object considered Beautiful is Active, since it throws certain patterns of light at the Viewer - a gem, a painting?
Quote :
But I do think that if you tried to define 'beauty' focusing only on yourself---your subjectivity---you'd miss part of the truth. To twist a phrase from Nietzsche... truth is a woman---you'll lose her when you act like you can't.
This makes me Think of various religious/contemplative practices where there is or could be argued to be a splitting off the valueing relationship from the object. Buddhist contemplation of consciousness itself or the 'i', where you end up with consciousness without an object and have a nice blissful experience. There are parallels in Hinduism and even the mystical fringes of the Abrahamic religions.
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
Even if it was, somehow, not simply subjective, it would not be experienced as such.
I don't experience beauty as subjective. When I see a beautiful movie, I don't just congratulate myself for it. I experience it as out there, in the world.
Quote :
It also seems to me Beauty is an end, not just a possibility or potential.
I agree with that.
Quote :
Buddhist contemplation of consciousness itself or the 'i', where you end up with consciousness without an object and have a nice blissful experience. There are parallels in Hinduism and even the mystical fringes of the Abrahamic religions.
I'm not much of a Buddhist. I've never had any kind of consciousness that was not a consciousness of something. No pure being, or whatever else.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
If beauty is an end...then it is a projection of the desired, missing, object/objective.
Another way of saying: complete, perfect, divine, absolute. Nietzsche called it "power". Other call it life, alluding to immortality.
Because if you think this world possesses such perfection, then you are either deluded or naive. I've experienced a certain type of beauty, but never a perfect one.
The artists sees the beautiful and thinks: "I could make it better." The ascetic thinks: "But why bother? This is good enough."
I watched trees rustling in the summer breeze...from a distance. How beautiful, I thought. But as I approached, a dead carcass of a dog at the base of one of the trees. And a smell straight out of hell.
