Surrender and Sexual Predation

Lyssa wrote:

I was "suggesting" not thinking that "maybe" why Satyr thought the way he did - that you come off as someone who is more receptive to ideas when presented by a female than a male... had its reasonable validity when under a similar context there is a certain logic you employ which you do not with the other.
The willingness of your objectivity is not in question, but your capacity - i.e. in light of how Satyr thinks from his observations of you - your degree of receptivity (the clarity of understanding ideas) being more easily attuned to a female than a male.

You know that is bullshit. You are a female, and I have been dominating you on Nietzsche, for months. You think I "get" nothing, given what you say. How receptive am I? Anyways, I dominate Sauwelios, or anyone else, on Nietzsche.

Quote :

Satyr's been on your case since March I think - regarding "just because" or "spontaneous evolution"...
Its going to be the beginning of June now, and you haven't made a single post to clarify you position or your views or anything on the subject.

Value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is. When you play the 'why?' game, and you keep asking why you do what you do (or value what you value), the game ends in a foundation (or else infinite regress, circularity, or nihilism). That foundation is the foundation of your value. Since value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is, X is valuable (when it is) "just because" of that relation between what you are, and the world as it is. There's nothing further to appeal to, to justify it.

You can investigate that relation, and dig into it. Science, and whatever. But as for the JUSTIFICATORY WHY question, there's nothing beyond that relation.

I was very clear, in March. Please, why don't you read the fucking post:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

I understand that you have principles and do not wish to share your views with just anyone, but I hope you can appreciate how you must appear to him then.
As someone who hides, obfuscates, does escapisms, etc.

What bullshit. Tell me how I appear to you. Do I hide and obfuscate and escape?

Quote :

What are the probabilities and logical astuteness involved in believing random mixing can on the off-chance produce an unexpected genius, or the line towards a genius...
Data?

This is his lack of integrity again. Why don't you go and read Chatbox Trivialities, and see if you can find ANY FUCKING PLACE that I ever talked about "random mixing". Why should I have to continually prove to you that I didn't say what you think I said? It's like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Why doesn't he just try to justify the bullshit that keeps coming out of his face. There's a difference between description, and justification. What he describes of me is bullshit, and of course, none of it is ever justified. One learns to take him as he takes himself.... less seriously. Isn't that so?

Quote :

he begins to believe you are more receptive to absorbing ideas from 'a' fifi, then someone like him... who you do not appear to consider after his constant asking at you.

"His constant asking at you"... LOL. Yes, I remember him whispering sweet nothings in my ear, in the early days. The personality or gender of the person has nothing to do with what ideas I absorb, Lyssa. Why is that not obvious to you?

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

I was "suggesting" not thinking that "maybe" why Satyr thought the way he did - that you come off as someone who is more receptive to ideas when presented by a female than a male... had its reasonable validity when under a similar context there is a certain logic you employ which you do not with the other.
The willingness of your objectivity is not in question, but your capacity - i.e. in light of how Satyr thinks from his observations of you - your degree of receptivity (the clarity of understanding ideas) being more easily attuned to a female than a male.

You know that is bullshit. You are a female, and I have been dominating you on Nietzsche, for months.

HA

  

I wouldn't want to steal your thunder.

Everyone has their own comforting myth, and I can live with yours. You need it.

Quote :

You think I "get" nothing, given what you say. How receptive am I? Anyways, I dominate Sauwelios, or anyone else, on Nietzsche.

Point me to the thread where you dominated Sauwelios.

Proof?

And we are not talking about it that way, are we? Its not your masculinity in question about Dominating or Winning someone, but your being more open to ideas from a female like fifi than a male like Satyr and Apaosha, etc. here, and I have told why you Appear so.

Quote :

Quote :

Satyr's been on your case since March I think - regarding "just because" or "spontaneous evolution"...
Its going to be the beginning of June now, and you haven't made a single post to clarify you position or your views or anything on the subject.

Value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is. When you play the 'why?' game, and you keep asking why you do what you do (or value what you value), the game ends in a foundation (or else infinite regress, circularity, or nihilism). That foundation is the foundation of your value. Since value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is, X is valuable (when it is) "just because" of that relation between what you are, and the world as it is. There's nothing further to appeal to, to justify it.

You can investigate that relation, and dig into it. Science, and whatever. But as for the JUSTIFICATORY WHY question, there's nothing beyond that relation.

You are eager to Conclude than stand in the sunlight, start a sep. thread on this topic expressing your views clearly and coherently in the form of a debate, so as to invite other view points. You would do this if you wanted to be benefitted in the spirit of real philosophy.

But here you are with your reticence again with a closed mind that I cannot blame Satyr for thinking of you the way he does for how you come across.

This is not the place I want to comment on the subject of value itself, but I was pointing out merely why Satyr thinks of you the way he does.

Quote :

I was very clear, in March. Please, why don't you read the fucking post:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mo Wrote:

"I am asking you to 'why' you pursue beauty---it's a question about goals and purposes. What is beauty your means to? And then I'm going to ask 'why' you pursue that. And then again, the 'why' question. You'll arrive at your end, and we'll see if you say "just because". If you don’t say "just because", and there's another because, then there's another 'why?' question for you.

When you say "just because", you are basically pointing to something about the world and your senses. That's what happens when you recognize that value is grounded in the world itself."



Satyr wrote:

"Saying "just because" you are recognizing your own nature, your own incapacity to justify your own ideas without referring to an outside authority, or referring back to your own incomplete understanding. Like a child says: "Just because".

The mind that does not understand pleasure, because it is trapped in its revulsion of reality which is experienced as need/suffering, pleasure becomes the end itself.
It is an animal that only senses the object/objective which it has been programmed to be attracted by, and it does not understand why.
It simply surrenders to the sensation and is content there on that level.

The question "why" is the most human question of all.
It is the beginning of the Nihilistic process. It is where Schopenhauer got stuck, what Nietzsche subsequently rejected, and what Buddhism in the east, and the Abrahamic religions in the west, use to deny existence.

To understand the why you must know yourself."




And it stops there without you responding back after that.

Quote :

Quote :

I understand that you have principles and do not wish to share your views with just anyone, but I hope you can appreciate how you must appear to him then.
As someone who hides, obfuscates, does escapisms, etc.

What bullshit. Tell me how I appear to you. Do I hide and obfuscate and escape?

Just in this post where you present a closed conclusion than open a subject for debate, its your Approach that is very withdrawn and closed.

Also, I had asked you in the chat many times on your impression of Satyr and what you think of him, and you refused to answer.
Saying simply "I don't want to be like Satyr" without any reasons or highlighting his errors or flaws IS a hiding.

Why do you not start a thread on why Satyr is the worst to you or some such instead of one on race and evolution? You could do that.

Quote :

Quote :

What are the probabilities and logical astuteness involved in believing random mixing can on the off-chance produce an unexpected genius, or the line towards a genius...
Data?

This is his lack of integrity again. Why don't you go and read Chatbox Trivialities, and see if you can find ANY FUCKING PLACE that I ever talked about "random mixing".

What nonsense. I remember clearly reading in that debate with Apaosha you speaking of selecting valuable qualities from x, y, z... and love as a focus on the good qualities irrespective of any other defects, and the combination being fruitful because of what it Could produce...

Are you going to deny that and smear that its Satyr who has no integrity??

Quote :

Why should I have to continually prove to you that I didn't say what you think I said? It's like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Why doesn't he just try to justify the bullshit that keeps coming out of his face. There's a difference between description, and justification. What he describes of me is bullshit, and of course, none of it is ever justified. One learns to take him as he takes himself.... less seriously. Isn't that so?

Why aren't you concerned why you have given him and myself and others here this impression?

So are you denying you do not believe in race-mixing as in picking up appealing qualities from anywhere and mixing them?

These two are enough to implicate you for me to interpret otherwise.


Mo wrote to Anfang:

""If you value X quality, and you contain valuable Y quality... why not risk an offspring that assembles both qualities? That's the simplistic thought experiment. That's the fucking question of the thread, retard."


Mo wrote to Apaosha:


"Apaosha: What if the blonde woman had a really low IQ? What if her entire family and genetic line shared this propensity for low IQ?

I guess you'd decide whether it's worth the risk. Beauty or intelligence. But if you value the other person enough to take that risk, you would certainly be able to love the child enough no matter how it turned out.

In a simplistic, hypothetical world where beauty is confined to one population, and intelligence the other, are you getting people who are beautiful and intelligent otherwise than by taking that risk?"

Quote :

Quote :

he begins to believe you are more receptive to absorbing ideas from 'a' fifi, then someone like him... who you do not appear to consider after his constant asking at you.

"His constant asking at you"... LOL. Yes, I remember him whispering sweet nothings in my ear, in the early days. The personality or gender of the person has nothing to do with what ideas I absorb, Lyssa. Why is that not obvious to you?

Because you do not take pains to disprove him, and falling back to "why should I take him seriously", etc. appears too Easy.

Self-reverence is about standing in perfect clarity to oneself and the courage to do so before others, and not tolerating black marks.

Satyr wouldn't tolerate a black mark to any false accusations made at him.

In comparison, you can see how you appear, you do not care enough for your self is what I think.

Lyssa wrote:

And we are not talking about it that way, are we? Its not your masculinity in question about Dominating or Winning someone, but your being more open to ideas from a female like fifi than a male like Satyr and Apaosha, etc. here, and I have told why you Appear so.

I don’t make ideas my own based on the gender or personality of the person. If you are going to accuse me otherwise, then justify such stupid fucking puke. Is it yours?

Are you completely ignorant to everything I’ve said to you, for months? And likewise for everyone else? Do you have a problem with your self-respect, that you are floating this insult to me without fully adopting it as your own? Own it, if you do.

You were "suggesting" that "maybe" why Satyr "might" have thought blah blah blah. What you said was puke. What is wrong with a person that they can't justify what the fuck they say, but feel the need to keep repeating it?

Here's a metaphor, for you: Grow some fucking balls.

And about "being open" to ideas. I have talked to nobody here more than Satyr. I dedicated an entire OP to him.

Lyssa wrote:

Mo wrote:

Value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is. When you play the 'why?' game, and you keep asking why you do what you do (or value what you value), the game ends in a foundation (or else infinite regress, circularity, or nihilism). That foundation is the foundation of your value. Since value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is, X is valuable (when it is) "just because" of that relation between what you are, and the world as it is. There's nothing further to appeal to, to justify it.

You can investigate that relation, and dig into it. Science, and whatever. But as for the JUSTIFICATORY WHY question, there's nothing beyond that relation.

You are eager to Conclude than stand in the sunlight, start a sep. thread on this topic expressing your views clearly and coherently in the form of a debate, so as to invite other view points. You would do this if you wanted to be benefitted in the spirit of real philosophy.

You asked me to explain what I meant. I did. Either it is clear to you, or it’s not. If it’s not, ask a fucking question. If you don’t want to, then don’t accuse me of being unwilling to clarify it for you.

Stop defending why Satyr may think what he does, and speak for yourself. When Satyr responded with “just because” –Did that have ANYTHING to do with what I said? How many times should I repeat it for him?

“My approach is withdrawn and closed” ---Then open it, by asking a question, or raising an actual criticism.

Lyssa wrote:

What nonsense. I remember clearly reading in that debate with Apaosha you speaking of selecting valuable qualities from x, y, z... and love as a focus on the good qualities irrespective of any other defects, and the combination being fruitful because of what it Could produce...Are you going to deny that and smear that its Satyr who has no integrity??

How the fuck is selecting for qualities that you value in a partner "random mixing"??? ---It’s the fucking opposite of “random”. Wake up.

Rather than justify anything he says, he keeps on with descriptions of somebody who doesn’t exist. And then accuses me of evading. No, have some fucking integrity and read what I said. It’s fucking clear. Quote it. Address it.

Lyssa wrote:

Why aren't you concerned why you have given him and myself and others here this impression?

I haven't....
You mean, why am I not concerned about his bullshit fabrications? ---For the same reason that I either adopt, or do not adopt ideas. I adopt ideas when they have the balance of reasons in their favour. Justification. I don’t need to reject something that has no support, for it to be rejected. It was rejected when they let it come out of their face. It falls to the floor, and I walk past it. It’s not because I don’t care about myself (as you ignorantly said), it’s because I do.

If you find something unclear about a post of mine, then actually point to it. Don’t just say, “Aha, here is a person who favours random fucking in orgies with no discrimination, who does not care for himself, who thinks everyone is equal, who is a nihilist, who is a blah blah blah”.

I’ll be judging you by how you act, going forward.

Quote :

Point me to the thread where you dominated Sauwelios.

Proof?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think being Nietzsche's woman, is as good a goal as any.
The one thing I always dreamed about was growing up to be someone's mouthpiece, to see through his eyes, to perceive reality as he perceived it, not as a way of going forward, but as a way of compensating for my own failings by remaining in his shadow, proud to be the best impersonator of him out there.

That is what I think of when I think of a man.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

And we are not talking about it that way, are we? Its not your masculinity in question about Dominating or Winning someone, but your being more open to ideas from a female like fifi than a male like Satyr and Apaosha, etc. here, and I have told why you Appear so.

I don’t make ideas my own based on the gender or personality of the person. If you are going to accuse me otherwise, then justify such stupid fucking puke. Is it yours?

Why would I 'accuse' you when its merely an observation, and a FACT that you openly have asked, and accepted Fifi cultivating you than Satyr.

Everybody on this forum knows that you have.

Quote :

You were "suggesting" that "maybe" why Satyr "might" have thought blah blah blah. What you said was puke.

It was in response to your own vomit that you couldn't understand the contradiction that Satyr presented in that thread about you and your hedonism, and so I "suggested", it "maybe" had something to do with.........

That's for you to reflect upon instead of concluding the other was contradicting himself.

Quote :

What is wrong with a person that they can't justify what the fuck they say, but feel the need to keep repeating it?

So why not reflect on why they do so?
What reasons have you come up with?

Where is your Socratic approach now?

Quote :

Here's a metaphor, for you: Grow some fucking balls.

How does that not apply to you, when you haven't started any thread to justify why Satyr is the worst and you would "never" want to be like him?

Quote :

Quote :

And about "being open" to ideas. I have talked to nobody here more than Satyr. I dedicated an entire OP to him.

You only ask him questions and clarifications and little counters, but you do not present your case.

If "just because" is not your phrase or your idea,,, why do you not start a topic on what IS your idea...

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:

Mo wrote:

Value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is. When you play the 'why?' game, and you keep asking why you do what you do (or value what you value), the game ends in a foundation (or else infinite regress, circularity, or nihilism). That foundation is the foundation of your value. Since value is grounded in a relation between what you are, and the world as it is, X is valuable (when it is) "just because" of that relation between what you are, and the world as it is. There's nothing further to appeal to, to justify it.

You can investigate that relation, and dig into it. Science, and whatever. But as for the JUSTIFICATORY WHY question, there's nothing beyond that relation.

You are eager to Conclude than stand in the sunlight, start a sep. thread on this topic expressing your views clearly and coherently in the form of a debate, so as to invite other view points. You would do this if you wanted to be benefitted in the spirit of real philosophy.

You asked me to explain what I meant.

No, I did not.

I was pointing out the common frame of aesthetics in the context of deriving value-stds. in response to why Satyr would think the way he does of you.

Quote :

I did. Either it is clear to you, or it’s not. If it’s not, ask a fucking question. If you don’t want to, then don’t accuse me of being unwilling to clarify it for you.

Did I accuse you of that?

Is asking you why you do not favour a debate-approach to a closed-conclusion approach accusing you of unwilling to clarify it "For Me",,, or is it do with the original topic of this thread as regards you - why Satyr perceives you the way he does when you call him contradictory...

Quote :

Stop defending why Satyr may think what he does,

You made a statement of his being contradictory.

I made a response to that observation of yours.

Who is personalizing things? You wish.
This is ME speaking for myself, and whatever concerns me.

Quote :

When Satyr responded with “just because” –Did that have ANYTHING to do with what I said? How many times should I repeat it for him?

And so I suggested you start your own thread and make clear what you are about.

Quote :

“My approach is withdrawn and closed” ---Then open it, by asking a question, or raising an actual criticism.

One would when you make a case first.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:

What nonsense. I remember clearly reading in that debate with Apaosha you speaking of selecting valuable qualities from x, y, z... and love as a focus on the good qualities irrespective of any other defects, and the combination being fruitful because of what it Could produce...Are you going to deny that and smear that its Satyr who has no integrity??

How the fuck is selecting for qualities that you value in a partner "random mixing"??? ---It’s the fucking opposite of “random”. Wake up.

It is when you think "intelligence" is "just another" quality...

Quote :

Rather than justify anything he says, he keeps on with descriptions of somebody who doesn’t exist. And then accuses me of evading. No, have some fucking integrity and read what I said. It’s fucking clear. Quote it. Address it.

He already did with the example of the red hair gene.

Do not pretend that he is some kind of stupid idiot who jabbers irrelevantly, if you value your character as being someone honest.

Quote :

You mean, why am I not concerned about his bullshit fabrications? ---For the same reason that I either adopt, or do not adopt ideas.

Then do not blame him for the observations he makes - you chose to accept being cultivated by Fifi (being critical of her included) and her ideas, than Satyr.
Its a fact then that he finds you more receptive to her than himself.

Why do you take that as an accusation when he constantly tells you so? Why does that irk you then, enough to find him unpleasant?

Quote :

I adopt ideas when they have the balance of reasons in their favour.

Yet, you never explained why Satyr's positions lacked reason and took to fifi.

Quote :

I’ll be judging you by how you act, going forward.

As if you haven't before.

Quote :

Quote :

Point me to the thread where you dominated Sauwelios.

Proof?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[/quote]

That's a 15 page post, I'll read it later as you "winning" someone isn't the immediately concerning topic here.[/quote]

Mo wrote:

I am nothing like you. Nor will I ever be anything like you.

I would just be guessing in saying you probably have misguided estimates of both parties. Give details as to what your present day estimates are in order to help my investigation. Other than time which you have plenty of, there's nothing valuble on the line other than the concerns of someone potentially petty. Stop letting fear hold sway and spill your guts.

There Will Be Blood wrote:

Mo wrote:

I am nothing like you. Nor will I ever be anything like you.

I would just be guessing in saying you probably have misguided estimates of both parties. Give details as to what your present day estimates are in order to help my investigation. Other than time which you have plenty of, there's nothing valuble on the line other than the concerns of someone potentially petty. Stop letting fear hold sway and spill your guts.

The "line" is a message to the reader.

It means nothing to me, since I consider him a moron. A moron telling you that he is nothing like you is a compliment.

Therefore, the message is directed elsewhere.
Some criticism has been shared with someone, and he is indirectly telling this other that, based on their shared analysis of Satyr, he is nothing like Satyr.  
It's saying this:
"Based no our shared evaluation of this person I am its opposite, and will always be so."

It's a form of appealing to the ideal; a seductive statement.  
The ideal here, as far as I can determine, is a romantic interpretation of that old stand-by Nietzsche.
He is Nietzsche true disciple, and others are pretenders, because we all want to be his disciples.
He can only evaluate in relation to this understanding of Nietzsche and his positioning as the best mouthpiece, the perfect offspring.

As such he is looking for his Salome and all contenders are varied manifestations of Lou Andreas.


There's a triad in play here - Father/Son/Holy Spirit....
The Real the Ideal and the agency.

The first two must come together, after being split apart, through the last, so as to achieve completeness.

Salome is Nietzsche's completion in sexual unity and the completeness is the perfect Human.

The antagonist wants her to know that he is no-thing, like the other, and so some-thing, for her, given their shared ideals.

Man, I didn't even think of that. I told him to stop a while ago. If true, the only way out of this would be a great imagination that thinks up the magnificent and believable.

This might be check mate buddy.

If not its like this version of Salome is an extremley bad one. But desperate times do call for desperate acts, mabey worthwhile.

There Will Be Blood wrote:

If not its like this version of Salome is an extremely bad one. But desperate times do call for desperate acts, maybe worthwhile.

But it is "bad" because it is all an imitation...as with his pride in being the one who gets Nietzsche the best...even better than Sauwelios who is not in the second decade of his obsession with Nietzsche, graduating to the Jewish version that is assimilating his views, the challenges exposed, into the post-Modern inevitability of Globalized uniformity.

Mooo is as much a Nietzsche, as Phonee is a Salome.
They are both facsimiles, or the type within the context of a Modern age characterized by a reduced lyricism, literacy, and increased uniformity, decadence.
The intent is to represent what has fallen out of the modern man's experiential possibilities, or has fallen to ill repute.
In an age of superficiality, the act replaces the spirit. All becomes pretense.
You are what you declare; you choose your identity, you do not discover it - you manufacture it.

The modern adage: "Be yourself" is a lie.
It simply means be true to your act, because being yourself is only permitted when self is a product of the culture and remains within the acceptable, the civil, the polite, the normal.

Since pleasure is for its own sake, and beauty in the "eye of the beholder" then identity is manufactured, cultivated, without connecting it to something else - taste with no roots, no past, and therefore no intent except the immediate.
Once identity is severed away from anything beyond the immediate, the culture, as in past/nature, history according to a modern narrative, then the identity can be fabricated by sampling experiences not your own.
This is called acting.
Not action in accordance to the innate, the manifestation of your particular past/nature, but adopted as a mask, a character over your personality.
The personality determines how well the character/caricature will be performed.

Lyssa,

'Cultivation' means the same thing as to be benefitted by, in the context of this thread.

Lyssa wrote:

Yet, you never explained why Satyr's positions lacked reason and took to fifi.

Satyr's cynicism is the same as phoneutria's. They both see "surrender" to anyone other than yourself as weakness and a death sentence, rather than an affirmation of one's values and a strength, as you do, in your OP. That's why Satyr described his predation as he did---i.e., parasitism. I reject both of their cynicisms, obviously.

When I act for the sake of what I value, I don't trash it, consume it, and excrete it. What I pursue in other people (and thus exhibit as valuable by my actions) isn't metaphorical food, to me. Nor do I measure the consequences of my actions solely in terms of myself---because I am not a solipsist about value. I'm not the parasite that Satyr describes of himself. The weak don't need help dying. And what would I get from feeding on it, other than another kind of weakness?

Quote :

If "just because" is not your phrase or your idea,,, why do you not start a topic on what IS your idea...

I explained what the idea was to you. I would just be cut and pasting it into a new thread.

Quote :

Then do not blame him for the observations he makes - you chose to accept being cultivated by Fifi (being critical of her included) and her ideas, than Satyr.
Its a fact then that he finds you more receptive to her than himself.

Anybody can make observations, and create more and more elaborate descriptions. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t still descriptions of internal shadows that they find moving in the dark. Satyr can describe for you some Christian nihilist egalitarian random-mixing Nietzsche wanna-be---as if that makes sense---but it doesn’t mean it isn’t bullshit. As I said, it falls to the floor and I walk past. After awhile, why even bother poking it?

Surrender, such a romanticized word.

The beginning of wisdom is a surrender - it leads to a lucidity some have called "objectivity".
it begins with a stoic acceptance of one's fate - the inevitability of it, as in mortality but more...as in the coming chaos, and its cyclical return.

The Nihilist grasps on the idea(l) to save himself from the real.
He surrenders to it, whether he call it idea, God, love, other, to escape what he cannot come to terms with.
He confuses a surrender to the hope the otherness offers for the acceptance of its unavoidable failure.
Like a child he clings to the arms of a stranger, because in him he has found his identity, and in that blessed union, never to be completed, he escapes.
The idea(l), the noumenon, the abstraction, having been given a name, a word, a symbol, becomes his salvation of hope.
He loses himself in it, thinking he has found a way around the infinite regress.
He calls it love, because it clouds his mind, with pleasantries, like a child grasping upon the nipple.

Surrender?
What more can a man surrender to than his own nature, his own ephemeral existence, his own end?
After that, there is only gamesmanship, the slight of hand and lip, selective intimacies, shared pleasures of give and take, and avoidance.

The man-child thinks he is invisible, when he provides all the data one needs, though he tries to keep it safe with small controlled bursts of plausible-deniability.
He wants to be seen, but not really - ideally.
He wants eyes to fall over him that will be forgiving, and tender.

Just a though....
If satyr thins of mo a particular way, instead of another, that's his own business and his own problem.
Specially if mo doesn't give a shit about what satyr thinks, which might be the case.

Does satyr go everywhere correcting every misunderstanding people make regards him? Why should mo? Why should anyone?
I think satyr said in a chat that he washed his hands from whatever any idiot may say or do based on what he posts. Should mo not do the same?
Why is it so important that mo should care abouy satyr or you think, lyssa? Do tell.

Mooo, is, used as an example, a specimen.
People like you fail to see the bigger picture.
You are obsessed with yourself, and everything becomes an interpersonal exchange, like pleasure is an event in space/time with no far reaching repercussions and no past.

Repeating "I do not care" sometimes indicates the opposite...and pretending you do care might also indicate the opposite, in regards to the particular in relation to the general.  

The same mistake is made, and not accidentally.
The average mind can only understand using himself as the starting point, and so he finds in my engagement of shit-Smears, for instance, and my usage of him, as an example, the only reason he can understand: obsession.

The explanation functions in two ways:
1- It offers a possibility it can relate to
2- It diminishes the one it is used to describe

This would be like accusing a scientist of being obsessed with an individual cow, when he is studying bovine nature, of being obsessed with that particular cow.

Now, I for one, could care less how anyone understand me and my actions.
If I care or do not care, is besides the point...because what I do care for is satisfied by what I do.
It's also true that whether others think I am fat or thin, tall or short, ugly or beautiful, smart or dumb, good with the ladies or a virgin, has little impact on my motives.
It only matters as an indication of the other's judgment...because we expose ourselves through what we think.

If I am proud of being the "best" Nietzsche mouthpiece, or if I brag about my I.Q., or how many women I've had sex with, all this matters, to me, for reasons other than the subject being proposed.
And if I am called a guru wannabe, or a cult leader, or vulgar, base, an attention whore, or whatever...does not matter.

I want everyone to tell me.
So, please tell me what you think of me or how little you think of me, or that you do not care to think of me, and I will continue to care...and I want you to know that I do care, and you do affect me, sometimes making me lose sleep over some hurtful remarks.

Perspectivism works only for so long, and only when one cannot put into practice what he thinks.

All knowing satyr, the people reader, who weeks ago thought me a divorcee with an adopted kid... I am not salome, as I am not the caricatures you paint of me. Your arrogance in categorically describing people from a position of ignorance is a display of weakness. Let your ideas stand for themselves, or resign to being an ankle biter... dear.

Ha!!!

My sweet...you are a closed book to me.
A mystery, wrapped in an enigma.

I bet you've never fished.

Are social conventions psychological truths?

I brought my whip!!!
In a medium of words, new ways of searching must be used.

Good to see two of my favorite people on the internets battling it out.

This is a battle?

Name changes are also important to notice, when only words are available.

phoneutria wrote:

Just a though....
If satyr thins of mo a particular way, instead of another, that's his own business and his own problem.
Specially if mo doesn't give a shit about what satyr thinks, which might be the case.

Does satyr go everywhere correcting every misunderstanding people make regards him? Why should mo? Why should anyone?
I think satyr said in a chat that he washed his hands from whatever any idiot may say or do based on what he posts. Should mo not do the same?
Why is it so important that mo should care abouy satyr or you think, lyssa? Do tell.

And why is it so important for you to defend Mo, and intrude on my thinking of a certain situation, a certain way, when that's my business?

Perhaps you should have asked me that before concluding I was 'pathetic', and now you pretend to seek to know?? slimy.

And if I answer you, its because saying f--- off might be just too kind.


Who said Mo 'should' care about Satyr or me??  It is because he 'did' care enough to point out a contradiction present, I suggested "it" probably had something to do with x, y, z and perhaps may not really be a contradiction...

That's not asking someone to care about the other, but to assess their own statement, their own judgement.
That's what you do in a philosophy forum.

Since you always personalize things because you *care too much*, you will be unable to see that.

But why does it irk you if I should go everywhere trying to set straight every misunderstanding people make regards Satyr?

Because a hedonist like you can only see Satyr as a person...

He is more than that.

He is a profound symbol, and perhaps it is the symbol I defend here and what it stands for??

He stands for something that is noble, rare, and a path and vision that is worth not only preserving, but spreading everywhere, and one of which includes, "he has never misled anyone" -  itself being a type, an ideal, that is worth more than preserving, defending.

Mo and Satyr are not equal; Satyr is a phenomenon, symbol of something larger and that has exceeded his personal self.

And if you have a problem acknowledging that, or with my defending him, which I will wherever and whenever I can, and it annoys you so, you should stick to your own attitude and not give a shite.

The challenge in this medium is feminine.
How to use only words...effectively.

Sentences like this...

Moooooooooooooo wrote:

You know that is bullshit. You are a female, and I have been dominating you on Nietzsche, for months. You think I "get" nothing, given what you say. How receptive am I? Anyways, I dominate Sauwelios, or anyone else, on Nietzsche.

...and this....concerning the "why?" and "just because"...

shit-Smears wrote:

This is a place for discussing things, either philosophical, or discussing regular things in a philosophical way. It's not a place to get a free education by responding to everything you encounter with questions that lead to infinite digress.

...and...

shit-Smears wrote:

I'm pretty much good at everything because of my amazing aptitude and discipline.

....and finally...

shit-Smears wrote:

What's fucked up is that you can't get a single one of them to engage you in an actual debate. They wanna write a book, put it out, and then run and hide someplace where they don't have to respond to criticism.

It's weird.

At least liberals can be open and honest about what they believe.

Can I enter a bovine's brain and see its thoughts?
No.
Can I watch it behave, talk, regurgitate, defecate, fornicate, and come to the most probable explanation?
Definitely.

phoneutria wrote:

All knowing satyr, the people reader, who weeks ago thought me a divorcee with an adopted kid...

And because you presented yourself as a coquette and insisted that YOU did not care what the other made of you as you are a dream-maker, and then you act as if the other had no scruples?

Amusing.

Quote :

Your arrogance in categorically describing people from a position of ignorance is a display of weakness.

Taking interest in knowing you would be him having no scruples about engaging with a married woman... is it not...

She's married?!!!
  

Well, I never...
I will apologize to her husband for not taking into consideration that hallowed of all sacred vows.
I should have smelled his sperm on her breathe...and cared, for moral reasons, and not only for the aesthetics.

My mind-reading is slipping.

She would like to have her cake and eat it too...


Her cynicism justifies her hedonism.

Salome was after all the figure who tried to "intellectually" seduce men, now why would that be an insult, when she's been stating here that is what she wants to do?

Seduce others with her mind...


Playing word-games is esp. very masculine...

Lyssa wrote:

She would like to have her cake and eat it too...


Her cynicism justifies her hedonism.

Are you implying that her conscience is not burdened by her pleasures?

Should mine be, when I feel such pleasure in exposing duplicity?

And Salome judged perfectly no?
She chose the best man...or was Nietzsche the one who exposed her to herself?
I don't know....
Ask Moooo, he dominates in everything Nietzsche.

Me?
I just knows me bitches.

Satyr wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

She would like to have her cake and eat it too...


Her cynicism justifies her hedonism.

Are you implying that her conscience is not burdened by her pleasures?

Should mine be, when I feel such pleasure in exposing duplicity?  

She stated she would not deny any of her desires, but in her mind you do so, apparently because your conscience is burdened...

Enough said.

Fifi speaks of weakness from arrogance for assuming something...

Imagine the idiocy and comedy of her calling me "rabid" when my username "lyssa" was adopted *Because* it meant rabid...

pathetic.

Lyssa means rabid?!
  
I had no idea.

You told me it was Greek for Valkyrie.

Satyr wrote:

Lyssa means rabid?!
  
I had no idea.

You told me it was Greek for Valkyrie.

Isn't she always telling how many languages she knows and about being a wordcrafter since young...

You would expect her to care what it means in every language without having to spell it out...

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Lyssa means rabid?!
  
I had no idea.

You told me it was Greek for Valkyrie.

Isn't she always telling how many languages she knows and about being a wordcrafter since young...

You would expect her to care what it means in every language without having to spell it out...

And then there's the internet data of shared wisdom.