Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Identity

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 7:47 am

No, you idiot....the reaction will be based on genetics, an automatic reaction that may or may not be controlled by a rational mind that determined all the parameters, such as cost/benefit.

Same if a dog were drowning, you simpleton moron.

The emotional reaction to a situation, you pathetic imbecile, is a genetic programming, which may, or may not be made concious.
The time factor, also, you simplistic, pathetic retard, is a factor.
How fast are you asked to react...determines if it will be instinctive, genetic, or rational, after consideration.

How and why someone reacts to stimuli, you sad, fucked up retard, is what we are exploring outside your emotional bullshit....objectively.
This to understand subjectivity as a reaction to the world.

Same goes for beauty, you lobotomised, ape, who was conceived after his mother accidentally dropped cum on her festering vagina while blowing a chimpanzee.
Our reaction to order, symmetry, is automatic, and then retards, like you, wanting to escape this, construct bullshit "eye of the beholder" crap, without knowing what you are talking about.  

Now go back to ILP, and post your nonsense quips, your mind-farts, among your own kind....you festering boil

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 1046
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 7:51 am

Satyr wrote:
He's asking you to dumb-it-down for him....
He wants to bring you down to his level....from the "clouds" - cut the intellectual "skyhooks" and make you comprehensible to a dullard's mind.
Like a fox urges the high sitting grapes to fall to its feet.

Are you disgusted, Lyssa?

Do we not see what the world has become, and what vermin must be endured to enjoy what time is allotted to us?

On the contrary, I am asking her to situate her words out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.

Interactions resulting in moral and political conflagrations that revolve around the manner in which different individuals have come [existentially] to acquire opposing moral narratives that revolve in turn around conflicting goods. Is there really a way for the autodidact to distill this all down to the most rational, moral, noble, virtuous behaviors?

Well, let's explore conflicting behaviors rooted in conflicting value judgments pertaining to issues like abortion, gender roles, human sexuality, animal rights, the role of government, gun control, capital punishment.

She can choose the issue.
Back to top Go down
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 1046
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 7:54 am

Satyr wrote:
No, you idiot....the reaction will be based on genetics, an automatic reaction that may or may not be controlled by a rational mind that determined all the parameters, such as cost/benefit.

Same if a dog were drowning, you simpleton moron.

The emotional reaction to a situation, you pathetic imbecile, is a genetic programming, which may, or may not be made concious.
The time factor, also, you simplistic, pathetic retard, is a factor.
How fast are you asked to react...determines if it will be instinctive, genetic, or rational, after consideration.

How and why someone reacts to stimuli, you sad, fucked up retard, is what we are exploring outside your emotional bullshit....objectively.
This to understand subjectivity as a reaction to the world.

Same goes for beauty, you lobotomised, ape, who was conceived after his mother accidentally dropped cum on her festering vagina while blowing a chimpanzee.
Our reaction to order, symmetry, is automatic, and then retards, like you, wanting to escape this, construct bullshit "eye of the beholder" crap, without knowing what you are talking about.  

Now go back to ILP, and post your nonsense quips, your mind-farts, among your own kind....you festering boil

I will leave it to others to judge for themselves where this is coming from. Does it say more about me, or more about him?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 7:56 am

Value judgements, you septic tank of idiocy, are determined by the goal, and how this goal has been cultivated within an environment, you orang-utan.

If a retard, like you, wants to value stupidity, then his choices will adapt to this goal.

I, personally, value intelligence, and think stupidity is disgusting....and so I am disgusted by the likes of you.

An idea(l), puss filled cunt, is a projection of an object/objective.

Would I jump into water to save a drowning chimpanzee?

Perhaps if the possible costs were evaluated, by me, to be minimal....compared to the possible benefit.
So, you will be left to drown.


The motive, simpleton, is what decides the value of a behaviour.  

If the drowning chimp was also retarded, or crippled, this would factor into my decision.

Chimpanzee, I am all for euthanasia.
Like the Spartans practised it.
A retard like you would not survive for long...
The goal, retard, the motive, decides what the behaviour is valued as.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 8:08 am

Chimpanzee, your attempt to pull at our heartstrings, by cutting our "skyhooks" you fucked-up imbecile, was noted as being part of your cowardice and psychosis.
This is what "you mean", you gorilla, by "bringing it down to earth".

Do not think, react emotionally, intuitively, insensitively....

No, retard, we will not be manimals like you.
We will think, and choose rationally, you degenerate pseudo-intellectual coward.

And if killing retarded babies is what is required to keep the genes clean from mutations like you, then so be it.
I would prefer to train females to choose according to my ideals, so that chimpanzees, like you,n ever are born, forcing me to deal with them, as I am now.
But they are overtaken by another meme, and so fuck gorillas, chimps, retards and the problem increases turning philosophy into an emotional campaign against reality.

RETARD...the goal, the object/objective decides what is superior and what is inferior....and so if being a degenerate son of a bitch is your goal you will value dogs, bitches, and manimals, like you.

And returning this thread to its title, this will also identify you, YOU!!, as what you want to be, and by wanting to be that, you will be exposed.


The world, douche-bag does not give a shit about your moralizing, your voting, your subjectivity....be grateful that you are protected from your won stupidity.
You cannot think away a lion, you piece of dog shit.  


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 1046
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 8:22 am

You are so hung up on seeing these relationships only as you think they are that anyone who dares to think they might be something else is, by definition, stupid. Your definition of course. A stupid person is someone who does not agree with you.

As though there cannot be any number of actual contexts in which someone sees the drowning child from his or her own particular vantage point. As though The Intellectual can tell us the only rational manner in which to react here.

Suppose for example your goal in life is to be rich. Suppose the death of the child will result in you [and not him] getting all the money. Or suppose you live in China. Your wife gives birth but it's a girl. You want a boy. So, you choose infanticide.

Any behavior can be rationalized. But the rationalization itself is rooted in dasein. And if there is a philosophical argument that can point us in the direction of one's moral obligation given any particular context, I have not come across it yet.

In other words, unlike you, I am not able to convince myself that if I believe something is true pertaining to conflicting value judgments then it must be true.

Axiomatically?
Back to top Go down
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 1046
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 8:27 am

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.

John Fowles



Come on, my friend, admit it, he's nailed you.  Wink
Back to top Go down
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 1046
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 8:36 am

Oh, and consider this...

What made Hannibal Lector such a fascinating character is that he did not go ballistic when confronted with those he construed to be unworthy of his genius. He was almost always so fucking cool, calm and collected, right?

He was at one with himself in a way that I suspect you will never be. And he sure as shit did not resort to the fulminations of the autodidactic philosopher-king.

Well, whatever that means.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 8:43 am

I want to change nothing...you are clueless, you sad fuck.
Nothing...
It is your kind of change I combat.
This is how clueless you are...

All you have now are quotes and your desire to escape judgement.


Here's my scenario, chimpanzee...


Person A does not value sight.
Person B does value sight.

Who is right, who is wrong...who is to say?
confused


Person A says:
"There's no objective way to decide if sight is superior to blindness."
Person B says "but there is", if you are not protected from blindness and you can say nonsense like that.

One day Person A and Person B find themselves in a forest, outside human environments, where strange creatures, including Satyrs, lurk.
No police, no hospitals, no signs, no moderators, no forum administrators...
One sees nothing, because having not valued sight he has not cultivated it; the other sees and can flee or fight.
He has an option.
Person B declares sight as being subjectively superior to blindness; he thinks its all subjective.

A bear comes out of the brush...Person A hears it but cannot see it.
The bear doesn't give a shit about his emotions, his beliefs, what vote was taken back in town declaring bears as non-hostile and misunderstood herbivorous; the bear does not give a shit how he, Person A, dismisses sight as not being objectively proven to be superior to blindness, and it eats Person A...objectively speaking.

Person B laughs, and laughs, and laughs, as he runs...and also cries because people like Person A vote, back in town, where they are in the majority, and they go on-line speaking like the blind retards that they are....

See, retard, the objective world decides which subjective interpretation of it is superior; if the inferior is not protected from its inferiority and it lives in sheltering delusion, and has blind children, and retarded grandchildren...when he should have been eaten a long, long, time ago.

You can't escape moron.
You are seen...
Your inferiority is objectively determined...and now displayed for all to see, indeed.
No vote on what is more real than not.
A bunch of retarded cowards voting-in their preferred reality, declaring that there's no objective way to determine if sight is good or bad, does not alter reality.

That's why you defend the status quo  permitting blind morons, like you, to mouth-off about things they are clueless about.  

I would not change a thing.
Except you getting the fuck out of my sight, because you disgust me and you are wasting my time.

But I found a use for you, retard...you are the mouse I use to train the others how to hunt.
Thanks for coming out of your rat-hole, where your kind hides.




_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:38 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 8:47 am

camus666 wrote:
Oh, and consider this...

What made Hannibal Lector such a fascinating character is that he did not go ballistic when confronted with those he construed to be unworthy of his genius. He was almost always so fucking cool, calm and collected, right?

He was at one with himself in a way that I suspect you will never be. And he sure as shit did not resort to the fulminations of the autodidactic philosopher-king.

Well, whatever that means.
Chimpanzee....you missed my quotes.

He could kill, retard....and that's how he dealt with filth, like you.
He was a fictitious caricature, and I live in reality....so I cannot do what he does, no matter how much i want to.

So, I am left with words, dealing with those who worship words, like you.
War like no Other, imbecile....

You emote, not think...and I deal with you on that level, and I find pleasure in exposing you for what you are.
Hannibal found pleasure in disembowelling and consuming the rude ones; the ones who insulted his aesthetics.
I find pleasure in disembowelling minds and consuming them on-line.

But...I might be wrong...

Fuckin' retard.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 9:05 am

Another example, for the retard...

A1 loves to eat.
A2 loves fitness.

A1 claims that there is no objective way to decide who is right and who is wrong, being that he is protected, and his food is easily accessible, by him.
The world, the objective world, does not give a shit what A1 or A2 thinks, it is what it is.
If either is wrong it is not reality that will suffer but them, who failed to perceive reality objectively.

Even if both are protected from reality, how much and for how long can they escape.
A1 may eat himself silly, thinking that there is no objective way to decide if being obese is better than being fit...and has a massive coronary...and dies....


Decision rendered.

Was A1 or A2 superior in his thinking; was more objective?
No emotion, no pulling at our heartstrings....objectively.
Each acted in accordance with their subjective interpretation of the objective world...one failed, massively...and if not for modern technologies he most certainty will die.

Objectively speaking is stupidity superior to intelligence; is seeing better than blindness?
Is there, truly, no way to decide?
Only for the cowards who want to hide their won inferiority.  

But these turds, from ILP, can only emote, and so everything becomes a moral dilemma...desperately trying to manipulate emotions and instincts because they are stupid retards, maintained as stupid retards by a system that prefers stupid retards...and these stupid retards reproduce because females are brainwashed by social conventions and released from Paternalistic controls.

Subjectivity is now code for: how it should be, ought to be, in a perfect world, where nobody faced the consequences of their decisions.
In nature the standards are simple, and the winner passes on his genes...in human environments things become complex...forcing a division between genetic impulses and social conventions.

This is the kind of retard you find on ILP....recently one went further than curing cancer, with numbers...he found the code for immortality.
Emoting, using words, playing mind-games, word-games, pulling at heartstrings, manipulating instincts, exploiting pleasures...a world of females.
This is what happens when you let women and children into a Symposium.
An orgy?
Masturbation?
 

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 9:46 am

Chimpanzee is so clueless the only examples he can give are human ones.....as in a human child is drowning, or what if someone values wealth and another values pleasure, and a third values cars?
This is how entrenched in humanity he is, how his conceptions are imprisoned with human codes and contrivances, where he finds comfort the most.
He can only consider Objectivity through the Jew Rand....and in the Capitalism versus Communism political dilemma.

Doesn't even realize how Capitalism is an intrusion upon natural processes.
To a lesser extent than with communism but still an intervention.


Chimpanzee thinks I am like his kind and I want to change something, when all I want to change is their change.
I want to intervene upon their emotional, nihilistic, interventions; I want to nullify their nullifications.  

Chimpanzee speaks of "dasein" repeatedly and has yet to define it, or does he accept Heidegger's definition as his own, in which case he would have to prove he understood it.

The chimp thinks I am proposing "truth" when truth is nonsensical; another term for the absolute, or it is a an obvious indication of an opinion as superior to an other.

Who, the fuck!!!!, spoke of truth?

Has anyone, here, ever heard me speak of TRUTH?
This chimpanzee has this idea of what I am saying, based on Rand, or some other bitch, and then combats this strawman thinking he has found someone to alleviate his internal stress upon.

No truth, retard!

Superior/Inferior, all measured against an idea(l) which is more, or less, connected to reality.
This "more or less" is a measure of objectivity, pseudo-human.

If you value being a chimp then you will measure your behaviour and all behaviours accordingly...and the world will determine if you were more, or less, correct, if and only if, you are not defended by a system that prefers chimps over humans.  
 

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 10:04 am

camus666 wrote:
Oh, and consider this...

What made Hannibal Lector such a fascinating character is that he did not go ballistic when confronted with those he construed to be unworthy of his genius. He was almost always so fucking cool, calm and collected, right?

No, what makes Hannibal such a fascinating character is even while society says, 'you are either civil, or you are a monster' and dismisses him "objectively", he never rationalizes doing what he does on institututed parameters. He is the real.

Hannibal wrote:
"You cant reduce me to a set of influences. You've given up good and evil for behaviourism."

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
Æon

Gender : Male Posts : 1966
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 10:33 am

According to Græco-Roman Trajedy and Comedy, Hannibal is a comedic character. Because while civilization demonizes and victimizes, Hannibal is no victim. He instinctively and subconsciously reacts to the process of civilization. He is ironic and an irony. He adapts to the civilized, as a predator, keeping his instinct sharp. He preys upon those who would see him as a prey, since he is an isolated individual. Alone, among manimals. Hunting the manimals who perceive in him a false weakness. A ruse, tricking those who lie to themselves first.

Hannibal is aware of his strangeness, but hasn't fully recognized it in himself. Hannibal is a human beginning to "know thyself" for the first time.

Hannibal is the beginning of a new world philosopher.
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
Æon

Gender : Male Posts : 1966
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 10:37 am

It's also ironic, purposefully written, that Hannibal interacts with the young male named "Will". His name is iconic and significant, "Will" relating to Willpower. Hannibal sees in "Will" the will of civilization. Will represents the civilized, the indoctrinated. This is why Will sides with the police and detectives, instead of Hannible, at first.
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

Magnus Anderson

Gender : Male Posts : 341
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Sirmium

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 9:07 pm

The reasons behind our feelings (such as moral ones) are too complex to be understood. This is what he's saying, I think.

He's the kind of guy who does not want to make an effort to understand difficult things. He confuses difficulty with impossibility. If something takes too much time then it's impossible to know it or not worth it at all . . .

Incapable of admitting to himself "I do not know". He's been fed the idea that he's intelligent since his birth, I think. He's been fed this idea so much it became an instinct he no longer understands but only feels. If someone questions his intelligence, then they must be wrong . . .

He's an interesting imbecile. I like playing with interesting imbeciles. I enjoy getting inside their heads and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. But it's very tedious at times.

He desires a truth (which is to say, an opinion he is confident in) but he does not want to pay the price for it. He believes truths must come easy . . . if they do not, then this goes against his instinct which tells him that he's intelligent, and unable to endure such a contradiction, he simply tells himself a lie.

How can you talk to such people?
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

Magnus Anderson

Gender : Male Posts : 341
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Sirmium

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon Apr 27, 2015 9:32 pm

iambecile wrote:
As though there cannot be any number of actual contexts in which someone sees the drowning child from his or her own particular vantage point. As though The Intellectual can tell us the only rational manner in which to react here.

There are indeed multiple vantage points ( = perspectives), that is true, but that does not mean they cannot be related to each other. Everything can be related to everything else as everything can be related back to survival. All you have to do is think and thinking is a process which is exhausting, and for the most part, uncertain, certainty being merely an end.

But people cannot adopt "higher opinions" if they do not have necessary preconditions. We already went through this over at ILP. An opinion, and a mode of behavior associated with, can only be adopted if the individual has necessary preconditions.

1 + 1 = 2 can be adopted by "everyone" (i.e. most humans) because its requirements are minimal. More difficult opinions cannot be acquired easily, they can only be imitated.

So the first thing to do is to get to know your limits. When a retard admits to himself that he's a retard, he thus proves to be a smart retard.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyMon May 04, 2015 1:40 pm

The correct answer is:

There is no objective world and so all subjective positions are equally valid.
No value judgment is superior to another, as there is no absolute (no God), and no certain, final, way of deciding either way.

Therefore, all self-identifiers, all life-choices, all lifestyles, all behaviors, are morally equivalent.

Parity via weakness: ignorance is a gnosis.
Weakness is a strength.
Either/Or: no absolute = all is possible, all is valid, all is true = chaos.

And the coward escapes the penetrating eye.
To every perspective you have the "That's only your opinion" escape.
Using your anus as a pleasuring orifice is not reprehensible nor does it signify a mutation, or an emasculation, as in beta-male behavior.
There is no objective usage for any orifice and so the individual can choose to use his own orifices in any which way and nobody can pass judgment on him/her.
Using your mouth for a sperm depository is just as valid as using it to eat.
Chopping off your ear and sticking a banana there, is not something anyone can make a value judgment about - as there is no God.
Having intercourse with an infant is no different than having sex with a cow.

Find a flaw in all positions to remain comfortable in your own, without having to justify them to anyone.
No alternative need be provided, as all you must do is hint at a weakness to dismiss it entirely.
It's the method used by that other ass-clown Zoot, not to mention phonee, who is more coy about it.
No juxtaposition to determine superior from inferior - it's an either/or.
Give me the absolute or I remain as I am: unconvinced and content.
No effort needed.
The turd uses it often.

Typical tactic.
I've seen it so often among the Liberals and those calling themselves "enlightened", which is code for Nihilistic as in: we reject all past, nature, objectivity, so as to live free: the foundation of decadence, and the expected symptom of sheltering, and of a civilization's decline.
The emphasis on pleasure, happiness is also used, represents this superfluity, wanting to remain comfortably numb.
In all civilization's this last stage was characterized by sexual promiscuity a loss of meaning, direction, a breaking down of social ties, and a heterogeneity, making amends by lowering itself to the lowest-common-denominator.
Which is usually an association with animals, or some vague identity with life, love, or some other emotional word.

Sometimes it is expressed in this way:
"Tear down your emotional walls" or ""Let go of your emotional baggage".
I wrote something about it once, in which I stated that not only will i not tear down my walls, because of what I wrote before, but anytime I come across someone who tells me to, I tend to build them thicker and higher as a response.
I also take in my baggage, from the porch, because thieves tell you to trust, and to not be paranoid and to let go of your stuff.

It's also the first thing con-artists say, and hypnotists: "Relax, trust me".
A form of disarming using shame.  

The more sophisticated reduce it to the sensation of pleasure.
It's one of those things that requires no thinking (less thinking actually accentuates it), is obvious, and it is shared by all.    

But, that's only what I think.

Ha!!!
afro

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyWed May 20, 2015 11:03 am

Identity....determined past projected as intent, as object/objective, as idea(l).

Man does not decide what to identify with 'just because', or because they or someone else said so.
The past determined the limits, the inherited potentials, and the mind projects the destination in harmony, in tune, in line, with this past/nature.
If it is not in harmony the individual goes nowhere, but recedes back to his mind if he is lucky enough to be sheltered.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyThu May 21, 2015 12:20 pm

Tyrant, stop calling others sycophants and cultists when you lack the ability to understand and differentiate positions.

If that Xt. chimp. mind of yours cannot think in degrees and discriminate, differentiate Rand's Objective Rationalism and Rational Objectivity, the nuance being one between Hedonistic-survival as an ends in itself, and the rank-differential survival-of-the-fittest, that's your idiocy. So have some decency to pause, read, understand, think before you vomit anymore of your bullshite.

Repetition and collapsing things does not make something true, no matter how many times you regurgitate your disgusting lies, idiot.

---



Rand's Survival-ism.

Quote :
"Happiness as the Ultimate Value

Happiness is the existentially and psychologically “successful state of life” (1961b, p. 27). As an emotion it is not simply a positive subjective state, as on some contemporary views, but an emotion that meets certain normative standards: “a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt,” achievable only by “the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions” (p. 32). Happiness is also a form of life-affirmation: “the feeling of one's blessing upon the whole of the earth, the feeling of being in love with the fact that one exists and in this kind of world” (1957, pp. 105–6). Thus, happiness is an objectively worthwhile and emotionally positive state.

Rand holds that the pursuit of happiness is inseparable from the activity of maintaining one's life through the rational pursuit of rational goals (1961b, pp. 29, 32). A virtuous life is, thus, essential to happiness. It is also a shield against soul-wracking unhappiness. Rationality, “one's total commitment … to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices … to the fullest perception of reality within one's power” (1961b, p. 28), is the basic virtue of which the other virtues are aspects or derivatives.

Rand's moral society is a society of independent individuals who respect each other's natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and who trade value for value, materially and spiritually. They live, in her words, by “the trader principle”. Individual (natural) rights and the trader principle are both dictated by the fact that, as rational, independent beings, we need to think and act for our “proper survival” (1961b, p. 31). Both are required by respect for individuals as ends in themselves, not mere means to others' ends.

Just as the standard of value is survival qua human being, so the ultimate goal is one's own survival qua human being. To accept this standard and goal is to accept (i) the three cardinal values of reason, purpose (or purposiveness) and self-esteem as not only “the means to” but also “the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life” (1961b, p. 27), and (ii) the three “corresponding virtues” of rationality, productiveness, and pride. These values are means to one's life insofar as they further one's life as a rational being, and they realize it insofar as they express the value we place on our lives.

Thus, she says:

“Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.”

The virtue of productiveness becomes the central example of purpose (one of the three cardinal values), reason (another cardinal value) becomes its source, and the virtue of pride becomes its result.

The survivalist view holds that just as literal survival is the ultimate value for other living entities, so it is for human beings (Kelley & Thomas 1999; Gotthelf 1999; Smith 2000). Survival is the source and final goal of all the actions of an entity, that which gives point to all its other values. For human beings, happiness, intellectual and artistic pursuits and rationality/morality are all means to survival.

Survival is the organism's ultimate value, the “final goal or end to which all [its] lesser goals are the means,” and the standard of all its other values: “that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil” (pp. 16–17). The same, suitably modified, applies to human beings. Life is the standard and goal of all genuine human values, in the sense that all of them — from food to philosophy to fine art to ethics—must be explained and justified as requirements of human survival. “Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival” (p. 24). Thus, “[t]he standard of value of the Objectivist ethics … is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man” (p. 25), that is, “the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice” (p. 27). To choose to live is to accept one's “own life” as one's “ethical purpose.”

Like Hobbes, Rand sees morality as a necessary means to long-term survival, but unlike Hobbes, she does not see morality as requiring a contract or even as a fundamentally social affair. The need for morality, according to Rand, is dictated by our nature as creatures that must think and produce to survive; hence we would need morality even on a desert island. There is, however, no duty to survive; morality is based on a hypothetical imperative: if you choose to live, then you must value your own long-term survival as an ultimate end, and morality as a necessary means to it.
But unlike Marx, her philosophical and political antipode, Rand thinks that social change has to start with a moral revolution within each individual and the spread of the right ideas and ideals through rational discourse and the inspiration of art.

Rand states that her philosophy, “in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute” (Rand 1957, Afterword). Capitalism, “the unknown ideal,” is the only political-economic system compatible with this philosophy because it is the only system based on respect for human beings as ends in themselves."

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



Satyr's Survival-of-the-fittest-ism.

Satyr wrote:
"Making pleasure an end in itself, another object/objective to give your life purpose and meaning, is really an admission that the world, and becoming conscious within it, is really an unpleasant circumstance.
The starting presupposition is man himself - man as subject with himself as the object.

Morality is placing man, as a representative of life, at the center of the universe, and then concluding that what benefits man, in regards to a specific idea(l) (object/objective), must be a cosmic “good”, and what threatens man must be a cosmic “evil”.
Once this leap of faith is achieved – based on narcissistic arrogance making it all the more easily acceptable – then the idea(l) that man’s interests, pleasures, and organic needs are part of a universal mystical rule can also be embraced without a second thought.
Use the term “world” and most often the other will assume you mean the human world of morals, ideals and hopes.
Use the word “objective” and automatically it is converted to human subjectivity without any existence outside the human brain.
Any attempt to bridge the existential distance between objective and subjective is either considered too impossible to be attempted, or too worthless to matter.
Every human dialogue becomes a debate over which subjectivity is most “positive” to theoretical human beings in the past, present and/or future, and conveniently avoids any discussion of reality beyond human desire.
Not even the attempt to approach objectivity is tolerated for long. If you cannot provide an absolute objectivity then the group would rather settle for a community of shared subjective equality, because in almost every case it satisfies some personal interest.

No world as objective, dynamic, always fleeing, reality, forcing the subject to adapt, to struggle towards...
All is subjective, and so all is equally valuable, when the world has creased to have an impact; when man exists within his own reality: a matrix battery to run the infrastructure.
And his reward?
Primal pleasures with no end outside themselves.
The luxury of living within ones own contraptions, when the bills are paid and nobody is disturbed.

The hedonists offer comfort, pleasure as an end, production as an identifier, consuming as a goal, the atrophy of jaded complacency (just because - it isn't that bad etc.), becoming cynical about anything that threatens to slap it out of its lethargy, hiding in word-games, and feminine emotive manipulations.

When discussing objective reality with a Modern, he will immediately assume you are talking about human reality.
For him to discuss the world is to discuss the human world...like the American can never think outside of Americanisms: the human world, for him, IS the American world.
Americanism is a further fragmentation of Modern secular humanism.: the self-choseness, of the mind deciding that it is, indeed, the center of all.
Not that man must adapt to the world but that there is nothing outside the manmade world...and then, for the American, there is no world outside the American world.
Everything refers back to the idea(l) which has already been taken for granted: Top<>Down thinking.
Not 'this is the world and here is how human ideas fit into it', but 'here is a manmade world, a perspective, a variant, and here is how everything else fits into it'.

The human emotions, pleasures, become THE defining idea(l).

No superior/inferior hierarchy is accepted - no survival of the strongest meme, the most probable possibility."

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Mon May 25, 2015 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyThu May 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Envy is brutal.
Imagine a halfwit with a major in philosophy and no way to apply it in real life wondering how, and why, and by what means...
Chimpanzee doesn't even realize he is doing the work for me, and how he misses the obvious, when I am the pragmatic application of everything I've posted.
He comes here, week after week, day after day, wondering why these people just accept my views, hoping he can partake, wondering if it is all part of a trick, a scam, a brainwashing technique.
He is impressionable.
His reaction to shit-Stain's bragging exposed him.

Every time he claims he has shamed me, I smile, waiting for him to flatter me with deeds, as he insults me with his skyhook words.
He still has no clue why he is stuck on Dasein, and his moral skyhook, his human, skyhook, his dualistic binary skyhook.

He feels it, has a hint, but he fears to look....being a feeble coward who wasted his money on an edumucation that did him no good.
Train a chimp to eat like a human and you've done what exactly?
Nature is so cruel.
Learning about philosophy and practising philosophy being not the same thing.

Even this reply he'll take as a validation...




Oh, poor chimpanzee thought I was some virgin, some inexperienced douche-bag loser playing video games in his father's basement, like him....
He must have lived some terrible North American circumstances, even a liberal like Moreno had to acknowledge.
He had to endure the cruelty of capitalism...boo hoo.....

Has he lived with no electricity for a year?
Bullying?
Has this turd faced military hazing, with out his mommy and daddy around?
Has he been a new kid in school, across the pond, in a different language, four times?

Having lived abortion, and the difficult choice of taking my own father's life, when he was dying, this turd never having faced the cost of being a communist, as I have, born to a communist family in a right wing country, when this meant social consequences, after the civil war; forced to go to an "undesirables" unit in the army, where criminals and communists, like me, at the time, lived in a grain silo, meant for animals in sub-zero degrees and long humid summers, now talks to me about his United State political dilemmas like abortion and capital punishment....
Ha!!!

Stuck on the word Dasein, and the right/left conundrum of United Stated simplicity, he is, and I must respect and take this retard seriously.
Chimp thinks we think he agrees with Moreno, that we do not know what it and Morono are all about.
Poor chimpanzee...
All we want is for the chimp and the zoo-keeper to engage each other, and for us to watch the exchange.
How long will the keeper last?
Will something get through to the chimp?
Ha!
I have no sense of humour, this is as factual as everything else this turd has said, but I do know a joke when I see one.

Trust me, I ain't laughing.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 2:01 am

The knowledge, and appreciation of the individual’s past is the affirmation of this past/nature (sum of all nurturing).
A partial knowledge and affirmation results in an incomplete, and/or erroneous, acknowledgement and appreciation.
A partial incomplete self-knowledge will warp the projection of an object/objective (ideal), often making the self-annulling seem self-affirmation.

The idea(l) is the projection of a goal, a desirable object/objective.
The self is what one is, as this has been determined by the past, and the idea(l), is what the individual wishes to become – it is the projection of self-knowledge in time.
Both this awareness of self, as what has been manifesting in a presence, and what one wishes to become, is part of what is called identity.

The idea(l), the object/objective, may be in harmony with this past/nature, or it may be, to varying degrees, contrary to it; nullifying this past/nature by forgetting it, dismissing it, rejecting it, ignoring it.
This is called a Nihilistic idea(l).
Whether the individual has a complete, honest, self-affirming relationship with his past, or not, really does not matter in regards to his fate.
The past is present through the genes; it appears, is apparent, because the individual is the manifestation of this past, whether he knows it, acknowledges it, accepts it, or not.
When the projected destination in time, (the goal, the desired idea(l), the object/objective) is in tune with the individual’s past (in harmony with it, aligned with it), then it is self-affirming.

As there are idea(l)s (object/objectives), which are self-affirming, or that are self-negating, so are there idea(l)s which are more, or less, realistic.
The degree of realism present in the object/objective is determined by how many sensual references (empirical connections) it maintains with the (inter)active world.
These connections might fluctuate, as the world is Flux.
This is why the healthy individual is continuously reaffirming its connection to reality using its senses.
The deranged individual is reaffirming the world as it is connected to via a proxy, a mediating authority/institution.
It is not the individual who decides the realism of his projected object/objective, but the world itself determines the individual’s degree of connection to reality.
The individual may be convinced that its object/objective is realistic, but the world remains indifferent to all particular subjective appreciations, understandings of it.
It is the individual itself that pays the price for being detached from reality.
It is the individual itself that bears the burden for not knowing or acknowledging or appreciating self, as sum of all past, all nurturing.
Objectivity is the degree of connection between the individual’s subjective interrelations (of self and of the world it finds itself in) and the world which is independent of all subjective interrelations of it.
Judgment is how the individual evaluates this connectivity.

Nobility is accepting the responsibility for an error, and striving to correct it.
Nobility is striving to harmonize the determined past/nature, with the projected object/objective.

First step towards this goal, (this object/objective, this idea(l)) is to know thyself as fully, honestly, lucidly as possible, and to then accept this self, as it has been determined by the past/nature.
Essentially to know thyself is to know thy nature, where nature is the sum of all nurturing.
Second step is to rid your object/objective of all corruptive elements that may divert it from reality; which may detach it from the world; the world as it is, and not the one you wish it were.
This requires constant vigilance.
It also demands courage, and a motive.
Emotions, particularly fear, creeps into all minds, warping all its constructs (its abstractions).
An inflated ego, an overestimation of self, is a by-product of this wrapping – it compensates for an insecurity with an exaggeration.
Underestimating self is no less corruptive.

How realistic your object/objective is, is determined by how many references to the real world it maintains.
How attainable it is for the individual is determined by the quality of his self-knowledge and self-appreciation.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyThu May 28, 2015 4:31 am

A narrative using the simplest imagery, so that even chimpanzees and retards might have a chance of understanding...



On Values and Value Judgement


I am shipwrecked on a deserted island.
I find a crate of food, a jug of water, a gem, and an axe.

How do I evaluate the value of these items?

First of all my past, my nature/genes, force me to evaluate the food and water as above the other items. I need. This need makes me value food and water more than a gem which has no value on a fuckin' desert island, and only has value within a human system - within a human socio-economic, political system.
Even between food and water there is a value hierarchy dependent on how pressing the need is and the duration of its satiation.
For example, water is more precious to me because I can only last a few days without water, whereas I can survive a week, or more, without food.
The objective here is my survival, my objective is to continue existing to continue having a choice, and to continue valuing, judging...being conscious.

Next in my hierarchy of value judgements, given the circumstances, would be the axe.
Why?
Because the axe promises the accomplishment of an objective that may, or may not, get me off this fuckin' island.
Are all the chimps following, so far?

My objective, my motive, my goal, determines the value of the phenomenon, which, in this case is an axe.

The gem is worthless to me in this situation.
It is only valuable if my second objective is accomplished and I return to a human environment, a human socio-economic system, and then only if within this system gems, shiny objects, are considered precious as ornaments, or because of some trait this particular gem might have.
It is potentially valuable, in relation to an other, who might be taken by its shine, and sparkle.
By itself, the gem is worthless, unless I find a use for it.
USE, utility, in relation to an objective.  

There is no value separate from need, and from a projected pre-emptive preparation for satiating needs.
I need to survive....the item are evaluated in accordance to this need.
I also need to get the hell off the island, and so this becomes a secondary need that needs to be satisfied.
If I do not want to get off my island, my value judgements change.
There are no value judgements outside needy organisms.
To judge evolved to satisfy needs, to deal with needs.
To discriminate, consciousness, evolved in order for an organism to survive, to self-maintain, then with the excess the mind can project goals, objectives, ideals.

So, there are two types of needs, corresponding to the above example, but also to nutrition and sex as a further reference point from biology.
A primary need is one determined by my past.
It can be ignored but it will inevitably bear a cost.
I cannot escape or change my past - I can endure it and deal with it, or suffer the consequences.
My subjectivity cannot save me from an objective world.  

There are secondary needs, which are projected objectives, of how I want to become, or what I wish to accomplish given my primary needs - sex falls in this category, as does the desire to build a raft to get off my island.
The gem is a projection into the far future if I survive, and if I get off the island.
It has no value in my presence, in my present state, as stranded and alone.

There are imbeciles who place value outside the organism as preceding life.
As in Value Ontology.
We are talking of a whole other level of retard in this case.
Here the needs must be sought in the individual itself doing the projecting.
What need, in such a pathetic creature, would make it invert the order of need>judgement->value, placing value before conciousness and separate from judgement, and free from objectives?
The objective is in the mind who dares to make such absurd claims.
The need is connected there.  
What possible need does inverting judgement/value satiate in such pathetic nihilists?
A need to be valuable, to be valued, independent of being judged by another concious mind?
A need to become indifferent to other minds and their judgements?
A need to replace God with a consciousness, a judgement implying Him?
We can psychoanalyse chimps and speculate all day, but one thing remains certain: there is no value in anything outside a motive, a goal, an objective.
And objectives are what organisms can have...not stones, not clouds, not particles, not gems.
To imply a universal unconscious motive is to imply a telos, an end, a universal purpose, which would imply a universal morality as in good/bad.
How very Christian of this pseudo-intellectual/martial-arts-expert, "atheist".

Now, the other chimp cannot understand how and why minds fight over values.
Conflicting values, it says.
Which ones are better and why?
As in natural selection onto a memetic scale...but using such words will confuse a chimpanzee who has a major in philosophy and has read Nietzsche, Heidegger and Rand, more than twice.
We need to dumb-it-down for chimps to follow, and then typically reject...because the motive in them is not to understand, as they pretend, but to dismiss so as to remain as they are, and to justify all the choices they made in the past.

Here the objective is to be used as the motivator.
As with me, on my proverbial island, motivated to get off it, projecting an idea (a raft), as what will increase the probability, without making it certain, of getting off the island, so do humans, having satiated their primary needs, project ideals as desirable objectives which might increase their chances of becoming what they wish to be.
The axe, and the trees are my means towards this end.
They rise in my estimations because of it.   
These projected ideals are hypothetical, uncertain, and so they vary in method and in essence.

This projection is founded on my primary needs and upon my past, my nature.
Some projecting minds dream of overcoming these primary needs, overcoming this past/nature, forgetting them.
Others desire to accentuate them, to sharpen and direct them.
Others surrender to them, making them a goal in itself.

To bring it down to a chimp-level of comprehension, an ideal, an objective, is based on what the projecting subjective mind values in himself and wants to preserve.
In my case, on my island, I value my freedom, and so getting off the island is a secondary priority, after my primary needs are met.
Without satisfying my primary needs my secondary need is meaningless.
I do not want to live in isolation and on an ocean confinement and so I am willing to risk my life to get off the island.
It may be pleasant for a while but can it promise a lifetime of safety from the world?
The ocean still washes upon the islands shores....the island is connected to the world no matter how isolated it is.
A chimp wallowing in pleasure for years, eating bananas of shoving them up its rectum for fun, is not immune to a human on a ship.

If I was stranded with a chimpanzee who did not care about getting off the island, because all it wanted was to eat bananas and coconuts, which are abundant on this island, then we would have conflicting values.
Are all values equal?
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
If I get off the island I can return and trap the chimp, taking it as my pet.
The chimp stuck there and content, has no such option.
Its values determines its fate, determines its possibilities.

If a retard does not value intelligence he will remain a retard for life.
Ignorance is bliss, but it is not immune to reality.
He will be exploited, manipulated by those who do value intelligence.
The retard is not immune to the other's value judgements because it is a retard, or because it has conflicting values.
The world, objective reality, determines which values and value judgements dominate and are better.
Not "I say so".
Not "Might is Right".
Noooooo, because "Right is Might".


Is being blind as valuable as being sighted?
Conflict in value judgements.
"How to decide?"....the chimp asks..."It's all relative" it concludes, because it is a chimp.  
Noooo, because sight gives you possibilities, options, a blind stupid chimp may never perceive.
Is being retarded more valuable than being smart?
Nooooo!!!
Because being smart, no matter the burdens and costs, has options a retard can never fathom.
Because despite the pains, and suffering, being smart, aware, offers you option, choices, advantages.  
This is not based on a subjective evaluation, but on an objective one; based on a correct assessment of reality...to be right is to acquire might.

Therefore the fight over values is a survival fight determining the fate of the ones involved and of humanity, in general.
What do you value and why?
Do you value life at all costs, or are there living conditions you will never tolerate, preferring death?
Do you value pleasure for its own sake?
Then your every decision and subsequently your possibilities will be shaped by this value judgement.
Do you value awareness, then any risk, any cost will be worth it so as to attain it.
Worth!!!!
As in value.
Are all values equal?
Again, nooooooooo!

Some values are totally subjective in that they do not even want to approach objectivity, but only want to be left alone on the fuckin' island, as if the world disappears there, as if the world cannot touch it there, as if the ones who did get off the island accomplished nothing superior to sitting around eating bananas and shoving them up your rectum.

The gem, for example, only has value in relation to other humans, within a socio-political context, where shiny ornament, displays of self-worth, satiating the need to be appreciated by others, to be acknowledged, to find a mate, and so on.
The gem, if it has no other useful qualities, is with no value if it is not given an objective by the one in its possession.

Properties are not values.
Properties are in reference to patterns of behaviour, patterns of (inter)action.
Value requires an evaluator, a judging mind, and an objective, a need.
Value is evaluating a pattern in relation to a goal.  

Your needs and your awareness determines your objectives, because if you are a chimp on that island with no clue that the ocean connects to other islands where other creatures live, you will have no use for the axe, and would value the gem more, because it is pretty and feels nice and it is pleasing, and you can play with it from dawn to dusk.
Here, play being a secondary need.
The objective is determined as superior/inferior by the objective world, independent from all subjective interpretation.
If I value understanding and this results in me inventing a spear, and then a bow and arrow combination, and the chimp values shoving coconuts up its arse for hours....the value judgements are not equal, not at par.
They have real world implications.

This is why the subjective mind closest to the objective real is dominant, and the subjective mind dismissing objectivity, careless as to the sequences of cause/effect, reinventing and inverting the causal chain, not interested in reality and in clarity, is always a chimpanzee.
It cannot be but a chimpanzee.
It is stranded on the island - happy, content, ignorant.  

How much more chimp-like can I say it?

Wait...let me give it another try...





Even chimps can imitate human behaviour.
Some even get trained in school, and are given diplomas in philosophy...
What's the difference between an old chimp and a young chimp?
The old chimp picked up some branch swinging tricks over the years.
It has also mastered walking on its hind limbs, like a human.

The young chimp has a lot to learn, in the swinging from the branches department.
Take the chimp out of the jungle, clothe it, teach it human ways...and what do you have?
We come full circle back to identity.






_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyFri Jun 19, 2015 4:25 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is a war over identity.

Schizophrenia is how the internal turmoil it produces is made perceptible, narcissism is a compensating act of fleeing the battlefield, hiding amongst the rubble, hugging what remains of "self" as if this will keep it together.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The war on identity begins with the destruction of the continuum of becoming we call "self".
An amputation of the present from its past/nature.
One of its collateral damages is the obliteration of the masculine, father figure, the paternal.

Every reconstruction begins with a levelling, and this is the case with identity.
Once the past, the genetic memory, the tradition, connecting the mind to itself, is buried in the dust, the slow reconstruction process begins, taking advantage of what is left over, in the mind: fear, desperation, need, grasping at anything that will provide stability: things, wealth, ideas, otherness, a shallow representation of symbols, with no connecting to reality - pure noetic artifices, used as clothes to hide the nakedness.
Self as a representation, via other symbols and utility - servitude to otherness; identification with otherness, culminating in the belief that the cosmos is reflecting the self back to the self; self everywhere and nowhere; self not as incompleteness, but as already present, and awaiting discovery (God).

In the aftermath some seek refuge within themselves.
A sheltering within their bodies where self is no more than the limits of their skin and bones; the manifestation of past/nature reduced to a superficial shell, disconnected from itself.
sensation reminding the mind that it lives, it grasps upon this certainty, along with pain, and settles for the beastly self, balancing between pain and pleasure, idealizing pleasure as the only goal left for the shallow carcass, that does not know it is buried in the chasm of the underworld....hoping a hero will liberate it with a final corporeal death, reuniting body with an already deceased mind, or with signs leading it to the exit, and a finally reunification with the social caricature running around in what is called the "outside".

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyFri Jun 19, 2015 6:24 am

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

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyTue Jun 30, 2015 2:40 am

Klossowksi wrote:
"The person can decide to laugh, or to abandon itself to the reflex of laughter, or to the reflex of pain or fatigue. But in 'every such case, the decisions are only the result of an excited or excitable state; they are thus subsequent to the excitation rather than prior to it. In the intensity of pain or pleasure, and especially in voluptuousness, the 'person' disappears for a moment, and what remains of consciousness at that point is strictly limited to the corporeal symptom that its very structure inverts. The notion of the unconsciousis here nothing more than an image of forgetfulness- the forgetfulnessof everything that owes its origin to the upright position.

Every human being can lie down, but it lies down because it is certain that it will always remain the same, and that it will be able to get back up or change position. It always believes itself to be in its own body. But its own body is only the fortuitous encounter of contradictory impulses, temporarily reconciled.

I am sick in a body that does not belong to me. My suffering is only an interpretation of the struggle between
certain hnctions or impulses that have been subjugated by the organism, and are now rivals: those which depend on me and those which escape my control. Conversely, the physical agent of my self seems to reject any thoughts I have that no longer ensure its own cohesion, thoughts that proceed fiom a state that is ~ foreign or contrary to that required by the physical agent, which is nonetheless identical to myself But what then is the identity of the self? It seems to depend on the irreversible history of the body, a linkage of causes and effects. But this linkage is pure appearance. The body is constantly being modified so as to form one and the same physiognomy; and it is only when the resources for the body's rejuvenation are impoverished that the person becomes fixed, and its 'character' hardens.

But the different ages of the body are all so many different states, each giving birth to the next. The body is the same body only insofar as a single seLfis able to and wills to be merged with it, with all its vicissitudes. The cohesion of the body is that of the self; the body produces this self, and hence its own cohesion. But for itself, this body dies and is reborn numerous times - deaths and rebirths that the self pretends to survive in its illusory cohesion. In reality, the ages of the body are simply the impulsive movements that form and deform it, and finally tend to abandon it. But just as these impulses are resources for the body, they are also threats to its cohesion. The purely functional cohesion of the body, in the service of the self s identity, is in this sense irreversible. The ages of the self are those of the body's cohesion, which means that the more this self begns to age in and with the body, and the more it aspires to cohesion, the more it also seeks to return to its starting-point - and thus to recapitulate itself The dread of physical dissolution requires a retrospective vision of its own cohesion. Thus, because the seEf; as a product of the body, attributes this body to itself as its own, and is unable to create another, the self too has its own irreversible history.

The identity of the self, along with that of its 'own body', is inseparable from a direction or meaning [sens] formed by the irreversible course of a human life. It experiences this hrection or meaning as its own accom- plishment - whence the eternity of meaning once and for all.

There is, in Nietzsche, an initial conception of fatality that implies this irreversible course, insofar as the self cannot escape from it. At first sight, this love for the fatum, and hence for the irreversible, seemed to have been Nietzsche's primary imperative.

But beginning with the experience of the Eternal Return, which announced a break with this irreversible once and for all, Nietzsche also developed a new version of fatality - that of the Vicious Circle, which suppresses every goal and meaning, since the begnning and the end always merge with each other.

From this point on, Nietzsche would no longer be con- cerned with the body as a property of the seg but with the body as the locus of impulses, the locus of their confrontation. Since it is a product of the impulses, the body becomes fortuitous; it is neither irreversible nor reversible, because its only history is that of the impulses. These impulses come and go, and the circular movement they describe is made manifest as much in moods as in thought, as much in the tonalities of the soul as in corporeal depressions - which are moral only insofar as the declarations and judgements of the self re-create in language a property that is in itself inconsistent, and hence empty.

But despite all this, Nietzsche would not forgo cohesion. He struggled at one and the same time with the to-and-fro movement of the impulses, and for a new cohesion between his thought and the body as a co~orealizingthought. To do this, he followed what he called, in several places, the guiding thread of the body. By examining the alternations in his own valetudinary states, he sought to follow this Ariadne's thread through the labyrinth of the impulses.

Convalescence was the signal of a new offensive of the 'body' - this rethought body - against the 'thinking Nietzsche self. This in turn paved the way for a new relapse. For Nietzsche, each of these relapses, up until the final relapse, heralded a new inquiry and a new investment in the world of the impulses, and in each case he paid the price of an ever-worsening illness. In each case the body liberated itself a little more from its own agent, and in each case this agent was weakened a little more. Little by little, the brain was forced to approach the boundaries that separated it from these somatic forces, in that the reawakening of the self in the brain was brought about ever more slowly. And even when it occurred, it was these same forces that seized hold of the functional mechanism. The self was broken down into a lucidity that was more vast but more brief. The equilibrium of the functions was reversed: the seljlay dormant in words, in the fixity of signs; and the forces were awakened all the more in that they still remained silent; and memory, finally, was detached from the cerebral self, a memory that could no longer desknate itself except in accordance with its most distant motifs.

How can the body subtract the cerebral activity from what we call the self? And first of all: how is the self re-established by the brain? There is no other way than by passing through the limit that is constantly redrawn in and by the waking state. But the walung state never lasts more than a few seconds. At every instant, the brain is flooded by excitations of greater or lesser intensity, excitations whose overwhelming reception must constantly be filtered. The new excitations are filtered through the traces of prior excitations, which have already been absorbed. But the new excitations can be co-ordinated with prior ones only through assimilation, namely, by comparing what is 'habitual' with what is foreign.

As a result, the limit cannot help but be effaced; after a few seconds, a large part of the brain is already dormant. Any decision or resolution made to not think an action so as to be able to execute it, presumes that only the trace of prior excitations is admitted, which assures the permanence of the selfs identity. Thanks to the body's muteness, we appropriate the body for ourselves in order to remain upright. W e create for ourselves an image of a meaning or a goal that we pursue in our thoughts and actions, namely, to remain the same as what we believe ourselves to be.

To restore these 'corporealizing' forces (impulses) to thought amounts to an expropriation of the agent, of the self. Yet Nietzsche brought abbut this restoration and expropriation through his brain. He used his lucidity to penetrate the shadows. But how can one remain lucid if one destroys the locus of lucidity, namely, the self? What would this consciousnessbe without an agent? How can memory subsist if it has to deal with things that no longer belong to the self? How can we remember as a being that can remember everything except itsev

Nietzsche's researches in the biological and physiological sciences stemmed from a double preoccupation: first, to find a mode of behaviour, in the organic and inorganic world, that was analogous to his own valetudinary state; and second, based on this mode of behaviour, to find the arguments and resources that would allow him to re-create himself, beyond his own self. Physiology, as he understood it, would thus provide him with the premises of a liberatory conception of the forces that lay subjacent

not only to his own condition, but also to the various situations he was living through in the context of his epoch. Nietzsche's investigationsinto science had the same aim as his investigationsinto art, or into contemporary and past political events. This is why he resorted to various terminologies, to which he gave increasingly equivocal turns of phrase. When borrowing from the various disciplines, he gave them h s own emphases, and pursued a vision that escaped them - a vision which, because of its experimental character, lacked any 'objective' consideration.

Since the body is the Self resides in the midst of the body and expresses itself through the body - for Nietzsche, this was already a fundamental position. Everything his brain had refused him lay hidden in his corporeal life, this intelligence that was larger than the seat of the intelligence.Alevil and suffering are the result of the quarrel between the body's multiplicity, with its millions of vague impulses, and the interpretive stubbornness of the meaning bestowed on it by the brain. It is from the body, from the self that every creative force and every evaluation arises. And it is from their cerebral inversion that mortal spectres are born, starting with a voluntary ego, a mind 'deprived of itself. Likewise, the other person, the neighbour, is nothing but a projection of the Self through the inversions of the mind: the you [tot] has no more reality than the me [moi], except as a pure modification of the Self finally, exists in the body only as a prolonged extremity of Chaos - impulses take on an organic and individualized form only when delegated by Chaos. It was this delegation that now became Nietzsche's interlocutor. From high in the cerebral citadel, besieged, it is called madness.

"Listen to me a moment, O Zarathustra - a disciple said to him one day - something is turning around in my head: or rather I would be prepared to believe that my head is turning around something, and thus that it describes a circle.

What then is our neighbour? Something within us, some modifications of ourselves that have become con- scious: an image, this is what our neighbour is.

What are we ourselves? Are we not also nothing but an image? A something within us, modifications of ourselves that have become conscious?

Our Self ofwhich we are conscious: is it not an image as well, something outside of us, something external, on the outside? W e never touch anything but an image, and not ourselves, not our Self.

Are we not strangers to ourselves and also as close to ourselves as our neighbour?

In truth, we have an image of humanity - which we have made out of ourselves. And then we apply it to ourselves- in order to understand ourselves! Ah yes, to understand!

Our understandng of ourselves goes from bad to worse!

Our strongest feelings, inasmuch as they are feelings, are only somethng external, outside us, imagistic: similitudes, that's what they are.

And what we habitually call the inner world: alas, for the most part it is poor and deceptive and invented and hollow."

Once the body is recognized as the product of the impulses (subjected, organized, hierarchized), its cohesion with the self becomes fortuitous. The impulses can be put to use by a new body, and are presupposed in the search for new conditions. Starting fiom these impulses, Nietzsche suspected that beyond the (cerebral) intellect there lies an intellect that is infinitely more vast than the one that merges with our consciousness.

Perhaps the entire evolution of the spirit is a question of the body; it is the history of the development of a higher body that emerges into our sensibility. The organic is rising to yet higher levels. Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and the dwelling of the body; consciousness and evaluations of the body, all kinds of pleasure and displeasure, are signs of these changes and experiments. In the long run, it is not a question of man at all: he is to be 0vercome.

Clear out the inner world! There are as many false beings in it! Sensation and thought are enough for me. The 'will' as a third reality is imaginary. Moreover, all the impulses, desire, repulsion, etc., are not 'unities', but apparent 'simple states'. Hunger: it is a feeling of discomfort and a knowledge of the means to suppress it. Similarly, without any knowledge, a series of movements can take place in the organism whose aim is to suppress hunger: the stimulation of this mechanism isfelt at the same time as the hunger.

What then is it that requires even the most lucid agent to remain unconscious of what is going on within itself? Nietzsche knows, for example, as he writes his notes on the impulses, that such impulses are acting in him, but that there is no accord between the observations he is transcribing and the impulses that have compelled him to write them. But if he is conscious of what he is writing, as the agent named Nietzsche, it is because he knows not only that he is ignorant of what has just occurred in order for him write, but also that he must be ignorant of it (if he wants to write and think). A t that very moment he is necessarily ignorant of what he is about to call the combat ofthe impulses among themselves. Even if he stops writing, even if he tries to stop thinking - could we say that he is therefore abandoning himself to the unconscious (in the form of an extravagant reverie)?

This is one aspect of the phenomenon that would lead Nietzsche to try to specify the relationship between the 'conscious' agent and the so-called 'unconscious' activity of the impulses in relation to this agent - for it is the agent that is 'unconscious' of this 'subterranean' activity. His inquiry would be undertaken in the hope of demonstrating that morality, which lies at the origin of every investigation, will be arrested only when it destroys its own foundation. Nietzsche pursues his inquiry in order to make himself finally admit that there is neither subject, nor object, nor will, nor aim, nor meaning - not only at the origin, but for now and always.

The notions of consciousness and unconsciousness, which are derived from what is responsible or irresponsible, always presuppose the unity of the person of the ego, of the subject - a purely institutional distinction, which is why it plays such an important role in psychiatric considerations. From the outset, this unity appears as little more than a Jickering memory, maintained exclusively by the designations of the everyday code - w h c h intervene in accordance with changing excitations, upon which they impose their own linkages in order to conceal the total discontinuity of our state.

For even when we are alone, silent, speakinginternally to ourselves, it is still the outside that

is speaking to us - thanks to these signs from the exterior that invade and occupy us, and whose murmuring totally covers over our impulsive life. Even our innermost recesses, even our so-called inner lije,is stdl the residue of signs institutedfrom the outside under the pretext of signifjmg us in an 'objective' and 'impartial' manner - a residue that no doubt takes on the conzguration of the impulsive movement characteristic of each person, and follows the contours of our ways of reacting to this invasion of signs, which we have not invented ourselves. This then is our 'consciousness'. Where does that leave our 'unconscious'? W e cannot even look for it in our dreams. For here again, if everything on the other side of the waking state were reconstructed, this would simply be the same system of signs of the everyday code being put to a different use. It is because of the difference between this use and the use that prevails in the walung state that we can more or less recall our dreams afterwards, and relate the strange words, or the words of a strange banality, that are offered there, through us or through other figures. Moreover, in the waking state we are capable of uttering things of the same type - whether in jest, or through fatigue, or through some other disturbance. When someone tells us that we are 'dreaming out loud', it means that something impulsive has shaken or upset the code of everyday signs: we have been surprised by our 'unconscious'. But this is nothing: even for someone to say this to us, the use of everyday signs is required - by the interlocutor, even if it is a psychiatrist. This implies that we are totally dependent on the everyday code, even when we let ourselves be surprised by our 'unconscious' - which, at the very least, will learn how to use the code in order to play with it and twist it around, as it pleases, even when we make fun of the psychiatrist and conceal our 'desire' to be 'cured'. This is why the strange behaviour that would result would be, in most cases, nothing but a ruse. But a ruse of what?

The ruse consists in making us believe in the coexistence of a consciousness and an unconsciousness;for if the latter survives in us, our consciousness would merely be a capacity to enter into an exchange with the exteriority of the code of everyday signs, and this capacity would amount to little more than receiving as much as possible while gving as little as possible. But we have no need to retain the greater part of this code - for the simple reason that we will never give up anything whatsoever of our own depth.

The more we hold our depth in reserve for use at the proper moment, the less we penetrate into our depth. A superfluous precaution: in effect, our depth is unexchangeable because it does not signijjy anything. Because of this unexchangability,we cover ourselves with the blanket we call understanding, culture, morality - all of which are based on the code of everyday signs. Beneath this cover, there would be only this nothingness, or this depth, or this Chaos, or any other unnameable thing that Nietzsche might dare to utter.

Why then did Nietzsche so insist on the unconscious that he sought an aim and a meaning in it? And why, on the other hand, did he reduce consciousness to nothing more than a means to this end, to this 'unconscious' meaning?Once again, he did so in order to make use of language (the language of science and culture), to answer for what he had received, or thought he had received, as the last link in a long tradition. The suppression of the true world was also the suppression of the apparent world - and also entailed the suppression of the notions of consciousness and unconsciousness - the outside and the inside. We are only a succession of discontinuous states in relation to the code of everyday signs, and about which thejxity of language deceives us. As long as we depend on this code, we can conceive our continuity, even though we live discontinuously. But these discontinuous states merely concern the way we use, or do not use, the fixity of language: to be conscious is to make use of it. But how could we ever know what we are when we fall silent?

"If we wished to postulate a goal adequate to life, it could not coincide with any category of conscious life; it would rather have to explain all of them as a means to itself - The 'denial of life' as an aim of life, an aim of evolution! Existence as a great stupidity! Such a lunatic interpretation is only the product of measuring life by means of consciousness (pleasure and displeasure, good and evil). Here the means are made to stand against the end - the 'unholy', absurd, above all unpleasant means

- : how can an end that employs such means be worth anything! But the mistake is that, instead of looking for a purpose that explains the necessity of such means, we presuppose in advance a goal that actually excludes such means; i.e. we take a desideratum in respect of certain means (namely pleasant, rational, and virtuous ones) as a norm, on the basis of which we posit what general purpose would be desirable -

The fundamental mistake is simply that, instead of understanding consciousness as a tool and particular aspect of the total life, we posit it as the standard and the conhtion of life that is of supreme value: it is the erroneous perspective of a parte ad totum- which is why all philosophers are instinctively trying to imagne a total consciousness, a consciousness involved in all life and will, in all that occurs, a 'spirit', 'God'. But one has to tell them that precisely this turns life into a monstrosity; that a 'God' and total sensorium would altogether be something on account of which life would have to be condemned - Precisely that we have eliminated the total consciousness that posited ends and means, is our great relief - with that we are no longer compelled to be pessimists - Our greatest reproach against existence was the existence of God." [Nietzsche]

How then can we affirm the authenticity of life in an intelhgble manner? When Nietzsche borrowed the terms means and end from language, he was paying tribute to the valorization of language. For although he knew that meaning and goal are mere fictions, as are the 'ego', 'identity', 'duration' and 'willing', it was nonetheless through these same designations that he agreed to speak in favour of an end - (neither Chaos nor the Eternal Return pursue any end other than themselves)- and of the means he was putting forward, which were capable of being willed.

The terms conscious and unconscious are therefore applicable to nothing that is real. If Nietzsche made use of them, it was only as a 'psychological' convention, but he nonetheless let us hear what he did not say: namely, that the act of thinking corresponds to a passivity, and that the passivity is grounded in the fixity of the signs of language whose combinations simulate gestures and movements that reduce language to silence.

"- Every movement should be conceived as a gesture, a kind of language in which (impulsive) forces make themselves heard. In the inorganic world there is no misunderstanding, communication seems to be per- fect. Error begins in the organic world. 'Things', 'substances', 'qualities', 'activities' - we must guard against their projection into the inorganic world! These are errors of species, through which organ- isms live. The problem of the possibility of 'error'? The contradiction is not between the 'false' and the 'true' but between the 'abbreviations of signs' and the 'signs' themselves. The essential point: the creation of forms, which represent numerous move- ments, the invention of signs for all types of signs.

- All movements are signs of an inner event; and every inner movement is expressed by such modijications offorms. Thought is not yet the inner event itself, but only a semiotic corresponding to the compensation of the power of the afects.

- The humanization of nature - interpretation according to we others."

In the inorganic world, communication seems perfect. Nietzsche means: there is no possible disagreement between what is strong and what is weak. 'Every power draws its ultimate consequence at every moment', he says elsewhere.62 Persuasion is immediate.

In the organic world, by contrast, where exchange and assimilation are necessary, misunderstandmg becomes poss- ible, since exchange and assimilation take place only through interpretation: from trial and error to certainty - the certainty of the conditions of existence. The latter can be obtained only after a long experimentation with the similar and the dissdar, and thus with identity. Only then can points of reference, repetition and comparison appear - and finally, comparable signs.

Now in a universe dominated by the inorganic, organic life is itself a fortuitous case - hence a possible 'error' in the cosmic economy. It is within this economy that interpretation, grounded in the fear oferror, becomes susceptible to error. Even if the origin of organic life lies in purely random combinations, it can no longer behave randomly once it comes into existence. It must believe in its necessity, and therefore it must maintain the conditions of its existence, and to do so it must avoid chance and not commit any errors. Hence the double aspect of error in Nietzsche: life depends on an illusion (its 'necessity') - whence the verhct: 'Truth is the kind oferror without which a certain species of liji could not live.'63

Let us retain this complex in Nietzsche's thought formed by 'chance', 'error', and the 'interpretation of the conditions of existence': the illusion of their necessity, as well as the necessity of their illusion.

The agent now thinks, or believes it is thinking, depending on whether it feels its persistence to be threatened or assured - and notably the persistence of its intellect. The intellect is nothing more than a repulsion of anything that might destroy the cohesion between the agent and this abbreviating system (as when the adventure of the agent gives way tof.luctuations of intensity, devoid of any intention); or, on the contrary, it is a pure and simple impulse (insofar as it abbreviates these fluctuations in the form of thought). Now how is thought itself possible - if not because the fluctuations of intensity are ceaselessly opposed to their own 'abbreviation'? Nietzsche says that we have no language to express what is in becoming. Thought is always the result of a momentary relation of power between impulses, principally between those that dominate and those that resist. The fact that one thought succeeds another thought - the second apparently engendered by the first - is the sign, says Nietzsche, of how the situation of power among the impulses is modijed in the interval. And he adds: i 'the will' - a fallacious reification. By which he means that all 'willing' that starts with 'consciousness' is still merely a fiction, due to this abbreviation ofsigns by the signs themselves.
Now it is a condition of existence for the agent to be ignorant of the combat from which its thought is derived: it is not this living unity of the 'subject', but 'the combat of the
impulses that wills to maintain it.

'The combat that wills to maintain itself. This was the unintelligible and authentic depth out of which Nietzsche wanted to establish a new cohesion, beyond the agent, between the 'body' and 'Chaos' - a state of tension between the fortuitous cohesion of the agent and the incoherence of Chaos.

Since perspectivism is the characteristic illusion of this automaton, to provide it with the knowledge of this illusory perspective, the 'consciousness' of this 'unconscious', is to create the conditions of a new freedom, a creative 'freedom. The 'consciousness' of the 'unconscious' can consist only in a simulation of forces. It is not a matter of destroying what Nietzsche calls the abbreviation (of signs) by signs themselves - the encoding of movements - but of retranslating the 'conscious' semiotic into the semiotic of the impulses.

What the doctrine of the vicious Circle tends to demonstrate is that 'belief in the Return, adherence to the non-sense of life, in itself implies an otherwise impracticable lucidity. W e cannot renounce language, nor our intentions, nor our wding; but we could evaluate this willing and these intentions in a dgerent manner than we have hitherto evaluated them - namely, as subject to the 'law' of the vicious Circle.

Moreover, the doctrine of the vicious Circle, which is a sign of forgetfulness, is grounded in' the fo*grtjulness of what we have been and will be, not only for innumerable times, but for all time and always. We are other than what we are now: others that are not elsewhere, but always in this same l$. Now for Nietzsche, is not lucidity (which means the thought of a total discordance between the hidden reality and the one that is claimed or admitted) the opposite of life? Is it not the inertia of power? Is it not precisely the non-true, the error that permits the human species to survive? Does not the unconsciousness of this 'physiological conditioning' correspond to certain indispensable conditions of existence for this animal species? Is this not what Nietzsche has been ceaselessly affirming? However, had he not stated with equal force that the only way we can overcome our servitude is by knowing that we are not free? That as pure mechanisms, pure automatons, we gain in spontaneity by knowing this?

On the one hand, forgefulness and unconsciousness are necessary to life; on the other hand, there is a 'will to unconsciousness' which, precisely because it is willed, implies the consciousness of our conditioned state: an irresoluble antinomy.

Now 'life itself created this grave thought [of the Eternal Return]; life wants to overcome its supreme 0bstacle'.

Thus, in the course of this final message, Nietzsche was dispersed and reassembled at different levels, and at different intervals of time. Whereas the greatest suffering was evoked one last time in order .for Nietzsche to sign h s own name, the greatest delight was made manifest at the level of the impulsive fluctuations: namely, the freedom to designate themselves at last, according to their own interpretation.

Nietzsche's obsessive thought had always been that events, actions, apparent decisions, and indeed the entire world have a completely different aspect from those they have taken on, from the beginning of time, in the sphere of language. Now he saw the world beyond language: was it the sphere of absolute muteness, or on the contrary the sphere of absolute language?The agent no longer led anything back to itself, but led itself into all things, which all designated themselves with the same swiftness as so many 'in-themselves'. . . .

Was this a matter of that inversion of time ofwhich Nietzsche spoke in a previous fragment? ' W e believe in the external world as the cause of its action on us - but in fact it is precisely this action, which takes place unconsciously, that we have transfovmed into the external world: our work is whatever the world makes us confront, which will henceforth react upon us. Time is necessary for it to be achieved: but this time is so short.'177

In no time at all: the external world, 'our work' - this is what his euphoria recuperated. How can the world again become internalized?How can we again become externalized so that we are ourselves the effective action of the world? Where in us would the world end? Where would it begin? There is no limit to one and the same action.

The euphoria of Turin led Nietzsche to maintain, in a kind of interpretive availability, the residues of everything that constituted the past in the context of his present experience. What everyday life normally holds at a distance, so as to receive only the bare fact of the day after duy - this is what suddenly irrupted in Nietzsche: the horizon of the past crept closer until it merged with the everyday, until they both occupied the same level. In return, everyday things abruptly receded into the distance: yesterday became today, the day before yesterday spilled over into tomorrow. The landscape of Turin, the monumental squares, the promenades along the Po River, were bathed in a kind of 'Claude Lorraine' luminosity (Dostoevsky's golden age), a diaphanousness that removed the weight of things and made them recede into an infinite distance. The stream of liiht here became a stream of laughter - the laughterfrom which truth emerges, the laughter in which all identities explode, including Nietzsche's. What also exploded was the meaning that things can have or lose for other things, not in terms of a limited linkage or a narrow context, but in terms of variations of light (despite the fict that this light is perceived by the mind before it exists for the eye, or that a reminiscence emanates from its rays).

'I thank heaven every moment for the old world, for which human beings have not been simple and quiet enough.'*7" The 'simplicity' of Nietzsche's vision at Turin almost had a Holderlinian accent to it - being precisely the irony of the society gossip column.

Because it was a 'jubilant dissolution', Nietzsche's euphoria could not last as long as Holderlin's contemplative alienation. Holderlin's desolation elevated him to a high place of peace and forgetfulness where he was constantly visited by silent images, with whch he could dialogue in the same simple, calm and melodious language. The silence of Holderlin's poems of 'madness' has nothing in common with Nietzsche's menacing silence, the price of the histrionic explosion at Turin. The vision of the world accorded to Nietzsche was not unveiled in a more or less regular succession of landscapes and still lifes, extending over a period of forty years. It was a parody of the recollection of an event. It was mimed by a single actor during one solemn day - because everything was said and then disappeared in the span of a single day, even if this day had to last from 31 December to 6 January, beyond the rational calendar.

Such is the world as it appeared to Nietzsche under the monumental aspect of Turin: a discontinuity of intensities that are given names only through the intetpretation of those who receive his messages; the latter still represent the fixity ofsigns, whereas in Nietzsche this jxity no longer exists. That the fluctuations of intensities were able to assume the opposite name to designate themselves - such is the miraculous irony. W e must believe that this coincidence of the phantasm and the sign has existed for all time, and that the strength required to follow the detour through the intellect was 'superhuman'. N o w that the agent 'Nietzsche' is destroyed, there is a festival for a few days, a few hours, or a few instants - but it is a sacrificial festival:

FIRE AND CONSUMMATION, THIS IS WHAT OUR ENTIRE LIFE MUST BE, OH YOU WIND-BAGS OF TRUTH! AND THE VAPOUR AND INCENSE OF THE SACRIFICES WILL LIVE LONGER THAN THE VICTIMS.'"

But what happens to conceptual coherence when the intellect becomes a mere tool in the service of the unconscious?

Nietzsche's thought relentlessly examines the competition between the arbitrary constraint imposed by the freedom of the impulses, and the persuasive constraint of the intellect - the latter in turn being defined as an impulse.

But what type of discourse can reconcile 'coherence' with thefactoftheimpulses- especiallyiftheimpulsesareinvoked as an end, whereas the producer of the 'concept', namely the intellect, is used as a tool by this arbitrary 'incoherence'? For we can speak of incoherence only in the terms of the intellect.

How could Nietzsche translate the arbitrary freedom of the unintelligble depth into a persuasive constraint? W d not discourse simply become arbitrary and devoid of any con- straint? No doubt, if the conceptual form were maintained. It is therefore necessary for this form to reproduce - under the constraint of the impulsive fluctuations and in a completely desultory manner - the discontinuity that intervenes between the coherence of the intellect and the incoherence of the

impulses. Rather than pursuing the birth of the concept at the level of the intellect, it comes to interpret the concept. Such is the form of the aphorism.

"One should not conceal and corrupt the fact that our thoughts come to us in a fortuitous fashion. The profoundest and least exhausted books will probably also have something of the aphoristic and unexpected character of Pascal's Penskes. The driving forces and the evaluations lay below the surface a long time; what comes out is effect."

To prevent discourse from being reduced to the level of a fallacious coherence, it must be compelled toward a type of thought that does not refer back to itself (i.e., to the intellect), in a kind of edifice of subsequent thoughts, but is pushed to a limit where thought puts a stop to itself [mette un terme 2 elle-mlme]. Insofar as thought turns out to be efficacious, it is not as an utterance of the intellect but as the premeditation of an action. In the latter case, what thought retains from the intellect is only the representation of a possible event - a (premeditated) action in a double sense. Since thought is the act of the intellect, this act ofpremeditating - which is no longer a new intellectual act but an act that suspends the intellect - seeks to produce (itself in) a fact. It can no longer even be referred to as a thought but as a fact that happens to thought, as an event that brings thought back to its own origin. There is something resistant in thought that drives it forward - toward its point of departure.

Nietzsche, following this process to its source, thus discovers that of which thought is only a shadow: the strength to resist. How then is the intellect constituted so that the agent is capable of producing only representations?

Representations are nothing but the reactualization of a prior event, or the reactualizing preparation for a future event. But in truth, the event in turn is only a moment in a continuum which the agent isolates in relation to itself in its representations, sometimes as a result, sometimes as a beginning. As soon as the agent reflects on it, it is itself only the result or begnning of something else. Every meditation that happens to us is only the trace of something prior, a 'pre-meditation' incorporated into ourselves - namely, a premeditation of the now-'useless' acts that have constituted us, so much so that our representations only reactualize the prior events of our own organization.

How can the coherence of the agent with a determinate impulse - once this coherence, which in a certain manner is adulterous with respect to the intellect, puts in question the agent as agent - be transmitted as an idea to another intellect? Idea means that the intellect conceives it - reconstructs it - even before judging it true or false. Must it not, at the moment of its transmission, awaken the other intellect as an impulse (adhesion) or a repulsion (negation, disapproval) - and immediately set in motion what, in the other intellect, constitutes its coherence as agent? Must it not bring its own organization back to the level of resistance or non-resistance?

The phantasm - the phantasmic coherence of the agent with a determined impulse - is thus produced at the limit-point where this impulse is turned into a thought (of this impulse) as a repulsion against the adulterous coherence- precisely so that it can appear at the level of the intellect, no longer as a threat to the agent's coherence with itseK but on the contrary as a legitimate coherence. In this way, it can retain its thinkable character for another intellect. But nothing of the phantasm remains in the idea thus transmitted, or rather created according to totally different dimensions.

If the phantasm is what makes each of us a singular case - in order to defend it against the institutional signification given to it by the gregarious group - the singular case cannot avoid resorting to the simulacrum as something that is equivalent to its phantasm - as much as for a fraudulent exchange between the singular case and the gregarious generality. But if this exchange is fraudulent, it is because it is willed as such by both the generality and the singular case. The singular case disappears as such as soon as it signijes what it is for itselj In the indvidual there is only a particular case ofthe species that assures its intelligibility. Not only does it disappear as such as soon as it formulates its phantasm to itself - for it can never do this except through instituted signs - but it cannot reconstitute itself through these signs without at the same time excluding from itself what has become intelligible or exchangeable in it." [Nietzsche and the Vicious circle]

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyTue May 09, 2017 1:18 pm

Latent memories are also called Habits.

And such habits become our character.

And our character becomes our identity.

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyTue Apr 02, 2019 7:43 am

My conception of Identity is as three-dimensional, related to the triangulation method of conciousness - the three-dimensional, that of time, simply represents momentum/movement through this three-dimensional space - where space = possibilities, and matter/energy = probabilities.

Triangulation is how consciousness orients and places itself within reality - directing its 'momentum' through it - Will is what we call this direction-giving, and it only applies to life and what is concious.
Non-living matter/energy, and the unities they create, are not directed but follow paths-of-least-resistance, in relation to each other.
I've explained how I think such unities can be produced without intent, i.e. elements, types of matter & energy, also called particles..and all the different categories we perceive etc.
Interaction suffices, and relationship of force/power, what the Greeks called Energy - the attraction/repulsion relationship, also called harmony, and/or disharmony.

Plato used the triad to symbolize human psyche, and Christianity adopted it to represent its one-god, i.e., the self-contradicting synthesis of three-as-one, alluding to a universe as man experiences it.
In biological contexts I identify three contexts to man, mirroring the previous triads: Body(physical, corporeal, referring to an immutable inherited past/nature)<>Nervous System (dynamic, synthesis, referring to an ongoing, fluctuating, present, interpreted as appearance)<>Mind (projecting, idea/ideal, referring to a yet-to-be-determined future).
Memory binds them all into a continuum - i.e. causality chain - characterized and measured by what we call 'time', experienced in the present as presence, i.e. mutable, dynamic, fluctuating, the realm of the nervous system, where past manifests as a dynamic presence.
Existence = this dynamic factor, i.e. to movement/momentum a.k.a. change.
Time is how an awakening organism evaluates momentum in relation to other - juxtaposing self-knowledge with perception of other. If we add the third component, i.e. the objective, the goal, then we begin creating a triangulation.

We have an ascent from simple organisms towards higher organisms, differentiated by the degree of free-will they can apply, and/or the degree of consciousness they develop, then we begin from the simplest, the plant.
The plant is past - genetic memory - entirely in the present, as (inter)active presence.
It has no ability to project or to be aware of a future, adding a third dimension to its understanding.
It is slightly above that of inanimate matter/energy that simply (inter)acts, along the paths-of-least-resistance, and has no sense of past/present,future.
Plants are past manifesting as presence - what 'awareness' they have is contained within the immediate present.
Without a nervous system, including a processing hub - called brain - they have no way of developing mind as a projecting tool.
The evolution of a nervous system begins the process of expanding the third dimension of future, and with it the cocnept of time also emerges, as a product of mobility - plants are mostly fixed in a specific space, unable to move or to direct themselves wilfully, except within the small dimensional fields of the immediate.
Any long-term advantages evolve through the slow method of trial & error - mutations arise, due to their interaction with environment, which prove to be advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral.
As the nervous system evolves the process of adaptation accelerates - offering an advantage to the organism that can accurately collect data and project them, as precisely (objective) as possible.
Taking into account chance, we can say that accurate approximations offer an advantage that increases survivability and the potential to reproduce.

Now we have an idea of what is 'superior' in relation to what is 'inferior' in the contexts of organic life.
The 'superior' is aware and can prepare and take advantage a broader field of possibilities, it then 'approximates' as probabilities. The quality of the approximation determines the degree of success/failure - this is called 'judgment'.
More sophisticated organisms - compared to plants - develop a three-dimensional perspective, and the degree sophistication determines the depth and breadth of perception.
Depth and breadth refers to spatial dimensions, i.e. possibilities/probabilities.

Choice is a definition of 'freedom'....not in the absolutist conception - rooted in Nihilism - but within the more pragmatic, and honest realistic conception.
All qualities are to be defined in degree and in relation to another, not as absolute singularities entirely detached and independent from all else - therefore there is no omnipotence, omniscience, i.e. no absolute, defined as immutable, indivisible, eternal, whole, singularity, complete, perfect.....
These terms can be used to express emotion, preference, pathos, since they are projections of internal states, that refer to nothing outside of this subject/object relationship.
Freedom, as it relates to Will, is increased by awareness, which is a product of a nervous system.
The benefit comes with a cost - increasing awareness offers a multiplication fo possibilities, potentials, but also an increase in anxiety, and stress....care.
Nihilism is seductive and popular, for this reason alone.

The lag produced by the time necessary to gather stimuli, via a medium such as atmosphere and light, and the transmission and processing speed of the nervous system,is constituted as a differential between (inter)action and perception, and then reaction.
For this reason organic life begins as a set of automatic reactions to stimuli - a priori reactions, conceptions, facilitating a quicker, more efficient and effective reactivity.
Less sophisticated organisms are totally reactive - their behaviour entirely automated, requiring no mental processing and/or evaluation.
With higher, more sophisticated organic life, the element of brain, projecting into future, i.e. mind becomes an additional factor with its many survival befits, compared to its fewer costs - one of which is reaction time.
for processing, judging, to occur, automatic reactions have to be controlled, or repressed, producing the first indications of mind/body conflicts that develop in nihilism into a full-blown desire to detach mind from body - or to reject and/or deny its significance.
This 'theoretical detachment can only begin along the nervous system where body/mind synthesize. For this reason language, a product of the nervous system, is the tool used to produce this detachment between ideal/real, noumenon/phenomenon, mind/body, with a distinct obsessive preference for everything having to do with mind.
Mind is where Nihilism seeks relief, i.e. escape, 'absolute freedom' from the corporeal, the material, the physical. this is why it is entirely idealistic...ideology with no external references and application, and, if it dares attempt an application it fails, and must make excuses if it is to preserve the ideology, and the ego that staked all its hopes and dreams upon it.

The triad can also identify the continuum we call Self.
Self/ego/self - corresponding to past/present/future = continuum held together via memory, including DNA.
Memory = encoded experiences, and/or (inter)actions. DNA/First-Hand Experience/Second-Hand Experience.
We can say that second-hand experiences are projection of first-hand experiences into another.

Self = inherited potentials.
ego = application of inherited potentials.
self = projection of possible/probable application of inherited potentials.

Within a different context - that of the organism itself - we can divide it into three factors:
Self = as that which preceded its genetic synthesis that would eventually be born.
self = that which follows birth, beginning the process towards death, accumulating experiences in the meanwhile, which are added to the Self, as a continuation of the inherited.
Ego = self awakening to itself - lucid part of self - the 'I', in identity.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyTue Apr 02, 2019 9:46 am

Based on the previous...
Plant = past made present, with no conception of future.
Human = past made present, projected into the future - ideal.
Modern/Nihilist = presence with no past, projecting into future.

Modern is an inversion of organic life, in its base form as plant.
Modern is a vegetable-brain, with a presence and no past, projecting into the future from what it can gather in the present, i.e, from the immediate environment.
They 'build' their identity on the most current culture trend, and on socio-economic ideals = memes with no genetic foundation.
Pure idea/ideal - ideology, theory, with no corporeal, tangible, physical reference.
We see it manifested in their art, i.e. fArt, and their ideologies. Pure noumena, called 'divine' because they've been 'purified', cleansed from their natural, and corporeal, tangible, foundation.

They attempt to 'purify', to sanctify, in the nervous system, using language, i.e. discrediting language, disconnecting it and refusing to reconnect it.
Nihilism is characterized by a reference/deference to icons/ideals, and no personal alternatives - they simply discredit and denounce, negating anything that attempts to rot itself in reality.

'Positive' Nihilists offering alternatives that have nothing external to refer to, except in other minds - proxies, icons/idols of authority - noumena referring and deferring to other noumena.
The 'positive' becomes the absolute that equalizes, via unification in a noetic singularity.

'Pure' Nihilists offering nothing more than cynical casual negation, and no alternative - dismissing all perspectives as 'imperfect', given the absence of absolute - as an argument for a belief in nothing.
The 'negative' becomes the absolute that equalizes, via the absence of an absolute and its replacement by the absolute 'nil' - uniformity of nothingness.

What is escaped is a juxtaposition of self with other, exposing inferiority - source of vulnerability and insecurity.

Therefore, a Modern Nihilist is an inversion and a regression back to a corrupted plant state.
The plant is an organism with a past made present, unable to conceptualize and project future, whereas a modern is a presence with a projected future and no past - an inversion of the plant as its ideal state, exiting entirely in the present, and projecting, into the future - progressive.
With no precedent the future is always project as a product of the present, and so it is always positive - always better.
Presence is but a preparation for a immanent future - the nil out of which existence continuously arises, and is reborn.
With no past, no precedent, imagination can 'liberate' itself and fantasize at will - liberalism. There is no natural order to restrict imagination, sampling from the ongoing present and its fashion trends - there si no nature out of which society emerges and so no genetic foundation for memes. all is a 'social construct', meaning it emerges out of organic minds...if not God then man creates the world out of 'nothing'.

If we place this psychosis within the triad of body/nervous system/mind, then for the modern a human, and only a human, is nervous system and mind, with no body.
The body's presence is ignored or dismissed as 'illusory'. God's 'spiritual' essence is replaced by man's spiritual essence - spirit refers to mind.

This s how language becomes a omnipotent force of world creation. Emerging as a representation of the nervous systems dynamism, it has no past, no precedence, to limit its 'formulation' and so it projects whatever absurdity it synthesizes as potential future worlds, i.e. immanent Utopias.
Paradise is brought down to earth but projected into the future, preserving its noetic purity, its sanctified ideological possibilities.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21911
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 EmptyTue Jul 09, 2019 2:36 pm



Destroying the meaning of words is Nihilism.
Words misused and abused, to incorporate them into an ideology.
Top<>Down emoting.

Female can be defined by reconnecting the concept to an observable behaviour.
Female, like male, has to do with heterosexual reproduction.
Therefore, to be feminine is to posses the physical and psychological (mental) traits, that facilitate this reproductive role.
It's not an abstraction, a meme void of substance.
Bringing the word 'down to earth' means returning it to its original function, as mediating symbol between a noetic idea, and a perceived phenomenon - where the phenomenon takes precedence, forcing the idea to adapt to it.

These natural roles, evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, can be adapted to social systems, evolved over hundreds or thousands of years.
Gender is the social adaptation of femininity.
It does not matter what symbols, names, you ascribe to it, no more than it matters if you call a 'rose' a 'butterfly'.
Each culture slightly modifies a natural behaviour to its own needs, but the core is al;ways present - sometimes repressed, sometimes sublimated, sometimes exaggerated.





_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Sponsored content




Identity - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Identity Identity - Page 2 Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Identity
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: