Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences

I am not making you drag yourself all over the floor, you are doing that to yourself.
Now if I see a man dragging himself, am I boasting over him when I call someone for help?

What exactly is this that you are doing, anyway? Do you want my foot on your chest? Dear, no need to ask twice.

And I am feeling pleasure doing so.

If being blind is also good, then why is not being humbled by a brighter mind, not so?

I want you to treat me like a dog, and I want everyone to see me being beaten.

You were not humbled by me, you were humbled by lyssa.
Now we leave it up to her to do the mending.

She was always my better.
Did I not say so?

Quote :

"The ritual of the squill, like that of the pharmakos, seeks to drive away a threat to the whole community; an individual is chosen and the impurities of the community are attributed or transferred to him; the pharmakos is thus an ambiguous figure, simultaneously impure and exceptionally sacred. In the Arcadian ritual, Pan has the same paradoxical status: the god is struck and insulted, and is at the same time a powerful source of fertility.

As the pharmakos is a human monster, so also Pan is a monster among the gods. The pharmakos described by Hipponax is struck with squill upon his private parts, and thus becomes a source of benevolent power. Pan is also struck with squill. The effect of this plan is pur­gative (which is to say, for the Greeks, cathartic). It was used in various rituals of purification. We have plenty of evidence that it was used to drive away impurity. Evidendy the ritual of violence against the god was intended to make him resume some activity he had interrupted; everything happens as if Pan had ceased to act, so that the blows falling upon his motionless statue were to recall him to motion and action.
The contrast be­tween animal sterility and fecundity is transformed into the contrast between Pan's action and inaction through an "overdetermination" dic­tated by a second contrast: that between the pure and the impure. The ritual of the squill, by stimulating Pan to act on behalf of fertility, in a certain sense "purifies" the god.

But Pan is not to be equated with the pharmakos. The dis­tinction between god and man makes such an equation impossible. To human impurity corresponds divine inactivity; Pan is not impure, he is absent. However, this absence of his is complained of as a cause of mis­fortune. Thus inactivity turns out to be something active; when he in­terrupts his benevolent action, the god turns himself into a source of animal sterility. That is why he is insulted.

Pan is equivalent to "everything".

We can understand the flogging of Pan's statue in Arcadia only in terms of the fertilizing power of this god; on this power depends the future of the human community..." [Bourgead, Cult of Pan]

Mired in a culture of victimhood, and hypertrophied egos, the slightest sign of not standing up for yourself is instantly relegated to a complex of surrender, sexual submission, shame, victimhood, humiliation, emasculation, effeteness, defeat, etc.

The mark of a slave is in the sign of its weak will - its passivity that from exhaustion cannot resist stimuli, reacts to everything and in the easiest conclusion it can afford by its innate hedonism.
The conclusion that comforts and is validated by the predominant environment it is mired in, and enslaved by, is the one that it comes to first.

When a hypocritical bipolar lunatic and rejected female is imbued with her jewish victim complex and her J.-Xt. sermonizing moralisms, sexual submission in the other is the first sign that she will inevitably see because that is what she identifies with, is obsessed with, longs for in herself, and exposes herself instantly.

When an insecure self-hating weary female claims the ideal female is one who is essentially a male and a competitor to a man to correct his flaws, effeteness and the condescending violence of emasculation and placing feet on his chest is the first thing she will inevitably see because the absence of her own feminity is threatened at the slightest sign of its appearance in the other, and repulses her - as she has none of her own. Proving her intelligence becomes a question of her security, and mired in the slavishness of victimhood, the outsider, the immigrant, "protest", "justice", the first sign of any leeway [made in recognition of the protestor's victim-logic] will be hungrily grabbed and clung to as a victory, as that kind of security of the image, is what she longs for in herself.


Everything turns to a game and image of hypertrophic egos.

Eyes-on-me-always-victims.


Is Satyr a loser? How very Pan-sy??

Was he humbled and shamed?

Did he Parody and touch the precise nerve and pressure points, and have them expose themselves?

Didn't Hannibal get the mongrel Verger to cut his own face and expose himself for the animal he was?

Isn't Satyr a playful pharmakon?

Doesn't he change his own environment and bring fertility to it when it goes dead... his activity causes stir, commotion, confusion, clamour, noise,,,,,, all the signs that Life IS?

Doesn't he send Pan-ic into the frail weaklings who feel threatened at the slightest sign of his de-Form-ity, his stepping out of Form? Isn't his ex-stasis too much for them?  They shake giddily and wobble like sweet translucent jellos...


Who is victim? Who is blind?

Who is flogged and who is going to pieces over him?

Who is God, and who goes green?

Who is Bull, and who the bullShite with their ignorance?


The lord of the sacred theater wears many masks...

And of Dionysos the Liberator, who set free true-form and crushed all false individualities, it was said,

"Dance Dionysus
Giver of all good things!"


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

Quote :

"God of the many names...
Seen in the glaring flame, high on the double mount,
with the nymphs of Parnassus at play on the hill,
seen by Kastalia's flowing stream.
You come from the ivied heights,
from green Euboea's shore.
In immortal words we cry
your name, lord, who watch the ways,
the many ways of Thebes.

This is your city, honored beyond the rest,
the town of your mother's miracle-death.
Now, as we wrestle our grim disease,
come with healing step from Parnassus' slope
or over the moaning sea.

Leader in the dance of the fire-pulsing stars
overseer of the voices of night,
child of Zeus, be manifest,
with due companionship of Maenad maids
whose cry is but your name.


The nightingale haunts the glades,
the wine-dark ivy,
dense and dark the untrodden,
sacred wood of god rich with laurel and olives never touched by the sun,
untouched by storms that blast from every quarter -
where the reveler Dionysos strides the earth forever,
where the wild nymphs are dancing round him,

Come, Lord Dionysos,
to the sacred temple of Elis' people
accompanied by the Graces,
to the temple
storming on your bovine foot,
worthy bull,
worthy bull. (Anonymous)

Dionysos, Lord of Dance, Loosener of All Bonds, the Great Liberator..."

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

How humbled was Hannibal on Verger's hooks, dangling feet away from his hungry swine; he, this "monster", surrendering to fate.

Verger found pleasure in a child's tears...hoping it'll give him eternal life.

The righteous way to conducting reason and seeking absolute truth in the sciences.

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

Truth and righteousness?  Yes, tell me what all of that means in this world again.  

Yes...once more you really get it.
You cut through the bullshit and find the weakness...pulling it all down.
So difficult to destroy, rather than to build.

And, of course, what the above signifies is something about absolute "truth" and "righteousness"....just as I am proposing order, as an absolute end to chaos....and, as a consequence, the end of time.
How you see right through me.

Your continuous interventions in these threads are so very productive.  

Thank you for reminding me of my lowered status, by beating me like a dead horse.

I think I got it. This is why Laughing Man hates authority so much and is so paranoid.






Racist Fuck. Relaaaaaax maaaaaaaaan, become a uncle Tom. When will you finally learn that you cannot stop the inevitable.




This is catchy.

He's a guy who takes credit for death, as if he was a mass murderer.

Every time the inevitability of death strikes true, he feels victorious.

Then there's the opposite camp...
They feel in the resistance to death, a universal truth, which transcends the obvious.
Every moment they stay alive, it is a blow against mortality.

Satyr wrote:

Yes...once more you really get it.
You cut through the bullshit and find the weakness...pulling it all down.
So difficult to destroy, rather than to build.

And, of course, what the above signifies is something about absolute "truth" and "righteousness"....just as I am proposing order, as an absolute end to chaos....and, as a consequence, the end of time.
How you see right through me.

Your continuous interventions in these threats are so very productive.  

Thank you for reminding me of my lowered status, by beating me like a dead horse.

You're very much welcome sir. *Tips his hat*

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

LaughingMan wrote:

The righteous way to conducting reason and seeking absolute truth in the sciences.

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

It was Mo's requested title for the thread in place of my suggested "Just Because" - which is short for hedonism, the main topic of this thread.

Hedonism:

Nietzsche wrote:

"The instinctive hatred of reality: consequence of an extreme capacity for suffering and stimulation, which can no longer stand being touched, because it feels every contact too deeply.

The instinctive exclusion of all antipathy, all enmity, all boundaries and distances regarding feeling: consequence of an extreme capacity for suffering and stimulation which experiences all resistance, even all necessary resistance as unendurable (that is, as baneful, as something against which the instinct to self-preservation warns us); and which acknowledges as blessed (pleasurable) only lack of resistance to anybody, to evil or to evil ones - love as the only, as the last possible way of life ...

These are the two physiological realities on which, out of which, the doctrine of redemption grew. I call this a sublime late-growth of hedonism out of thoroughly morbid ground. Cheek by jowl, although with a generous allowance of Greek vitality and nervous energy, is Epicureanism, the pagan doctrine of redemption. Epicurus a typical décadent: first recognized as such by me. —

The fear of pain, even of the infinitely smallest pain—this can end in no other way than as a religion of love ..." [AC, 31]

Lyssa wrote:

It was Mo's requested title for the thread in place of my suggested "Just Because" - which is short for hedonism, the main topic of this thread.

Are you serious?

About?

I suspect he is perplexed about your affirmation just because =hedonism.

Just because is versatile.
It can mean anything.
It usually means "Because I SAY so!!"

Another way to achieve the same effect is by suing words that point towards something, but say nothing...as in "It's spontaneous", as in:

"Why did you kill that spider?"
"Just because....something spontaneous took over."

Then, if someone tries to find what this shit means, you can deny everything as in:
'That's not what I said"
or
"Look up spontaneous, or because."

If the other offers an explanation you did not think about say:
"Yes, THAT's what I meant by spontaneous"
or
"Yes, THAT's what I meant by just because"

The dictionary is supposedly an insight into what the mind is thinking when it uses a vague term.

It's how a moron uses few words to fabricate the myth of its own intelligence.
like when females claim a mysteriousness to explain why they are airheads, constantly changing their minds and falling in and out of lust.
They are perplexed by their own behavior and because the common myth is that the individual always knows himself more than an other, the idea that she is something mystical becomes part of her public persona.
Of course, females, or anyone trying desperately to appear complex and mysterious, and deep, is really shallow, simple, and usually not more than average in intelligence.

A basic rule, and you can see it in thinkers in all fields:
Complex minds simplify; simple mind complicate.

I may be putting words in Mo's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he's saying something like - I value X "just because", as if to say - X has inherent, intrinsic value for me, it's not a means to an end, but an end in and of itself, and that the only things that have actual value, are things that we value for their own sake, and not for the sake of something else, he's not saying - there are no Darwinian explanations for why I inherently, intrinsically value X as an end and not as a means.

Satyr won't allow such silly things as coherence and a clear explanation get in the way of his strawman bashing.

Divergense wrote:

I may be putting words in Mo's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he's saying something like - I value X "just because", as if to say - X has inherent, intrinsic value for me, it's not a means to an end, but an end in and of itself, and that the only things that have actual value, are things that we value for their own sake, and not for the sake of something else, he's not saying - there are no Darwinian explanations for why I inherently, intrinsically value X as an end and not as a means.

In other words he does not want to validate and verify his conceptions...he only wants to surrender to them.

"I value this, and I am not going to justify why, or what I mean by value".
No reference to anything outside the psyche, the mind.
"Just because I say so"

A self-referential process, akin to solipsism, made possible only under sheltering circumstances where this sort of delusion does not have to face the indifference of the world to these proclamations
Total subjectivity.
I am the center of the universe.  

This is what modernity is...perspectivism....the referencing back to self making all ideals, principles that do not loop back to the mind, or that do not ensure that this state of being will not face a world that does not give a shit will be preserved.  

The common core in ILP, as a reflection of the world at large.
A community so detached from reality because they want to live in their own heads.
Their common ideal is all that ensures that they can remain safe and sound when in this state of narcosis.
This is why they seemingly disagree, but then agree to disagree, knowing that they need not justify whatever they prefer to think, but must only reaffirm the system that provides them with the privilege of doing so.
This is what I described as noumena detached from phenomena...and why I said modernity produces schizophrenic narcissists.

He who disturbs this sleep is either ill or is suffering from a greater narcissism than they are, because he's proposing an objective reality which he has a superior perception of.
Every thing must become subjective because then nothing can disturb their lethargy.
They need not confront a world that does not care about what they hope or wish, but give themselves totally to whatever they like.

Their common ground is their "right" to believe in any absurdity that makes them feel good, just because, without having to justify it.
So, pleasure as a negation of need can be need as a negation of pleasure, and chaos can be order and order can be chaos...it doesn't matter, because all that matters is that you can choose any definition you prefer.
There's no standard to limit the options, except the shared ideal of remaining oblivious, if you pay their dues.
Believe what you want just as long as you do not disturb the other who has a right, and has paid for the privilege of believing in anything he wants.

For them a subjective agreement on a shared objective world is ludicrous or a symptom of a cult, because for them there is no objectivity to restrict the figments of their imagination, and the only thing they agree upon is their right to do so and the need for the system that ensures that they can.

For such imbeciles to agree of an objective reality which appears to all, and shows that race and sex and homosexually are this, is a cult....because the same things can be thought of as anything you prefer if you have no objective standard to measure your subjectivity by.
Words floating in air - no gravity, no earth, no gravitas.
Then you can be cynical and glib and so clever with your word-games.

I think I get your point.

You're saying just because X person says I love Y, doesn't mean they know themselves and the world enough to say they like Y.

We may use general psychology, their psychology or evolutionary psychology to undermine their claim.

For example, if they say they love French Cuisine, but then we proceed to ask them all sorts of questions, like what is it you love about it exactly, and they have trouble answering, and we already know they're into showing off, being pompous and pretentious, we may suspect they're lying or exaggerating their claim, in order to appear more sophisticated than they really are, that what they're really into, is status.

Or, if they say - I love all humans equally just because - we may say, that flies in the face of everything we know about human nature from experience, and everything evolutionary psychology tells us about it.

However, I'm not so sure Mo was saying he's not interested in making these sorts of inquiries, I think he was just saying that what is valuable, is valuable for its own sake, and not for something else's sake.

Really?
Have you seen anything of value coming from him?

He's a closet Jew-Christian who must believe in objective morality, but not in any other objectivity if it hurts someone.  

Here's the thing...

Modernity, as I've defined it, is this culture of subjectivity.
All must become equally subjective, because there is no objective world to measure anything by. Equally subjective is equality - and because there is no objectivity to limit subjectivity, all have the right to remain equally deluded.
You can say and do whatever you want, unless it challenges the systems that protects you from an objective world you deny.

You are an "innocent victim" of the world and must be protected from it, offering you the privilege of remaining child-like and obtuse.
If you pay your way, and remain loyal to the shared ideal that all have a "right" to believe any absurdity they want, then you can continue using words which need not refer to anything outside your head.

The lies are ignored, because the social contract states that all have the same right to declare anything they want, if it does not threaten the right to do so.
What threatens such a human right?
Reality.
Take man outside social structures and let him live within his preferred delusions....
How long before culling clears out the field?

The world does not care about human subjectivity.....human subjectivity should care about the world...but when it is sheltered it does not care. it is careless, carefree...it can believe in whatever it wants.
everything is reversible.
Subjectivity is the evolution of consciousness.
Consciousness of what?
The world.
The world does not change to accommodate consciousness of it, consciousness changes to accommodate the world - if it is not protected from it.

Words are now pure expressions of personal taste. Their role as symbols of phenomena is decreasing in importance.
Value is measured by how words affect the majority emotionally.

"It's not that bad" means...there are people out there who will take care of whatever objective world effects seep through the subjective walls to disturb human oblivion.
A deferment of power to the "experts"; most of which are focused on a small piece and have no ability to see the bigger picture.
It's not required of them, even if they can.  
Those that do see the bigger picture are censored if they expose it too much to those who must live in their subjectivity bubbles.
The goal is social harmony, exploitation, production/consuming values.  
Reality becomes a strictly regulated commodity.

Isn't it clever?

World is objective, perception is subjective.

Lyssa wrote:

It was Mo's requested title for the thread in place of my suggested "Just Because" - which is short for hedonism, the main topic of this thread.

What part of where I explicitly rejected hedonism in my OP makes you think I am a hedonist? Why are you making this thread about hedonism, rather than what I wrote in my OP?

Why do you take "just because", and then chop off what comes before and after it in the sentence, and then go on to strawman and puke on it? Read the OP, I labelled it for you.

Divergence/phoneutria... will respond later... busy...

Satyr wrote:

Really?
Have you seen anything of value coming from him?

I went back and reread the first page of this.
I see some value in what he has to say.
While a lot of it is elementary, rudimentary, philosophy 101 type stuff, the sort of stuff they probably teach students on the 1st or 3rd day of philosophy class... I can't argue with it, and he did word it nicely and neatly.
A lot of it is back to basics, back to the drawing board, crap, there's very little of him or the world in it, it's more a means of evaluating things, an epistemology, a method, rather than an evaluation.
I think academics like him (I'm assuming he's one) are trained to think hyper-epistemologically, in addition to parroting their professors and dead philosophers, particularly analytic ones, like Mill, or Russell, or analytic interpretation of continental thinkers like S. or N.

Mo isn't stupid, he's just boring.
He's just more of an analytic thinker.
He plods along slowly from A, to B, to C, but he rarely missteps (he's careful... cautious, little risk/little reward), where as I've become more of a synthetic thinker, the more I've delved into philosophy.
You're a very synthetic thinker as well, and I think his approach isn't what you're accustomed to (it's not how you think).
You're interested in making the really big connections, like whenever you speak, we get the whole, or nearly the whole of your worldview, even if its a microcosm of your thought, for you, it's of vital importance to demonstrate how the microcosm contains the macrocosm, implicitly.
You're interested in how everything is connected, it's the connectivity between the dots rather than any one dot in and of itself, that interests you, how they can be connected or disconnected, where as a guy like Mo, deals with each dot and surrounding dots in isolation.

In a way, Mo's right, you didn't address what he was saying, rather, you addressed what he wasn't saying, it was what he wasn't saying, that you had a problem with, what was implicit, rather than overt, in what he said.
You were interested in the shadow of what he said, rather than what he said in and of itself, and thus, what we have here is a case of miscommunication.
That you proceeded to make all sorts of assumptions and insinuations about him and his philosophy from what he wasn't saying, was I think, too hasty on your behalf, you should've just brought up your points, and tested how he responded to them, rather than attacking him for points he never made, but should've, or could've made.

Your points were about psychology, and evolutionary psychology, and how "just because" was insufficient, were very good in my estimation, but he's slow, not stupid, but slow, he always brought you back to - "well, I didn't say anything about evolutionary psychology or psychology, for or against, I just said what is valuable is valuable for its own sake".

While I think what you have to say is generally a lot more interesting than what he has to say... I would say that what you have to say about the world, is more pertinent and relevant, but sometimes how you engage others who disagree with what you say, or simply haven't agreed or disagreed with what you say explicitly, isn't very constructive or helpful.

You're too quick, in my opinion, to destroy the enemy, in the "war like no other", the Judeo-Christian nihilist you see hiding behind every mask. I would say slow down a little, and be more mindful of the individual.

You are a holistic thinker, everything is cyclical and fractal with you, where as Mo is binary, linear.


I may address what you said about modernity later on.

Divergense wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Really?
Have you seen anything of value coming from him?

I went back and reread the first page of this.
I see some value in what he has to say.
While a lot of it is elementary, rudimentary, philosophy 101 type stuff, the sort of stuff they probably teach students on the 1st or 3rd day of philosophy class... I can't argue with it, and he did word it nicely and neatly.
A lot of it is back to basics, back to the drawing board, crap, there's very little of him or the world in it, it's more a means of evaluating things, an epistemology, a method, rather than an evaluation.
I think academics like him (I'm assuming he's one) are trained to think hyper-epistemologically, in addition to parroting their professors and dead philosophers, particularly analytic ones, like Mill, or Russell, or analytic interpretation of continental thinkers like S. or N.

You assume so much.
He's a bovine-boy.
How do you North Americans call it?
Cowboy.
He likes being around cows.  

Divergense wrote:

Mo isn't stupid, he's just boring.
He's just more of an analytic thinker.
He plods along slowly from A, to B, to C, but he rarely missteps, where as I've become more of a synthetic thinker, the more I've delved into philosophy.

Inartistic...non-philosophical.

He's a robotic thinker.
By the code, by the book - recipes, precedent, established narratives, popular myths.
The internet and the dictionary are his reference points, like the pop-culture and the Bible is for others.

Divergense wrote:

You're a very synthetic thinker as well, and I think his approach isn't what you're accustomed to (it's not how you think).
You're interested in making the really big connections, like whenever you speak, we get the whole, or nearly the whole of your worldview, even if its a microcosm of your thought, for you, it's of vital importance to demonstrate how the microcosm contains the macrocosm, implicitly.
You're interested in how everything is connected, it's the connectivity between the dots rather than any one dot in and of itself, that interests you, how they can be connected or disconnected, where as a guy like Mo, deals with each dot and surrounding dots in isolation.

Why would I gossip about a cow, or a bull, if I can use them to understand bovines in general?
Individuals bore me.
Eventually it all comes down to platitudes, humor, sex.

Divergense wrote:

In a way, Mo's right, you didn't address what he was saying, rather, you addressed what he wasn't saying, it was what he wasn't saying, that you had a problem with, what was implicit, rather than overt, in what he said.
You were interested in the shadow of what he said, rather than what he said in and of itself, and thus, what we have here is a case of miscommunication.

He never says anything clearly.
He insinuates so that he can then deny what he is implying.
One time he dared to come out and say that race mixing is good and he exposed how conventionally Jew-Christian he really is.
Stupid as in a coward, unable or unwilling to think beyond the social conventions.
Like having a muscle car you never take over 80 km/hr.
Only in his case its a moped, and he's drilled holes in the pipe to make it sound like a Harley.

Divergense wrote:

That you proceeded to make all sorts of assumptions and insinuations about him and his philosophy from what he wasn't saying, was I think, too hasty on your behalf, you should've just brought up your points, and tested how he responded to them, rather than attacking him for points he never made, but should've, or could've made.

I'm prodding, hoping he'll speak freely so that his essence shines forth.
I know what he is....but he's shy, careful.

I'm not interested in his opinions, because I've seen them here and on ILP, mostly.
He's dull, conventional....
I want to use him.

Like when he repeats, as if I'm supposed to be hurt by it:
"I am not like you"

What does that even mean?
Nothing.
It's an insinuation, a gesture of dismissal.
A social tool.

Divergense wrote:

Your points were about psychology, and evolutionary psychology, and how "just because" was insufficient, were very good in my estimation, but he's slow, not stupid, but slow, he always brought you back to - "well, I didn't say anything about evolutionary psychology or psychology, for or against, I just said what is valuable is valuable for its own sake".

No, he's a coward, and a Jew.
He's average with no artistic flavor.
Bland.
His only schtick is the quiet, brooding, bovine-boy type...man of the range.

Did you see Clint Eastwood when he opened his mouth onstage without a script?
Poof...there goes that image he had cultivated over the years.  

Divergense wrote:

While I think what you have to say is generally a lot more interesting than what he has to say... I would say that what you have to say about the world, is more pertinent and relevant, but sometimes how you engage others who disagree with what you say, or simply haven't agreed or disagreed with what you say explicitly, isn't very constructive or helpful.

You might think I should spend hours respectfully responding to morons coming at me with the same crap I faced half a decade ago, in this endless repetition of the same...but I have more interesting things to do.
Like use them as toys.
If I thought that this douche-bag had something interesting to tell me, I would not be flogging him every chance I get.
He's worthless to me, but being a positive thinker, like I am, I want to find value in the worthless...so I use him in the only way I can benefit from.  

If you find him more useful, or useful in other ways, then please indulge.

Divergense wrote:

You're too quick, in my opinion, to destroy the enemy, in the "war like no other", the Judeo-Christian nihilist you see hiding behind every mask. I would say slow down a little, and be more mindful of the individual.

You are a holistic thinker, everything is cyclical and fractal with you, where as Mo is binary, linear.

There is no "destruction".
This type is indestructible.
It has acquired some defensive tools, along the way.
He is part of a majority....quantities of idiots.
You can't get rid of this dis-ease, and why would I, if I could?
So many that they overwhelm.
Stupidity is its own defense mechanism.
An idiot is too simpleminded to be rattled - like a child, like a woman, (s)he exists in a perpetual beautiful bliss of eternal adolescence.

You can't do what should be done, because he's protected.
So, what's left?

You use him in the only way you can.
It's not about this moron...as it isn't about phoneee, or Torn-Anus, or Kovacs...or shit-Stain.
The individual is dull, easy to deal with.
It's that they are part of a majority that makes them interesting as specimens of a majority.
They are simply a means to get to another end.

I know there are people who read and do not participate.

Kovacs/Morono once accused me of not responding to individuals, meaning him.
I don't when they have nothing interesting to tell me, or have no clue what I am saying.
I started a thread for them to challenge my views...
I've structured it in a way where I will not waste my time on the idiotic that still do not understand what I am saying, despite being one of the few posters on-line who has posted his views so thoroughly.

I doubt they will take advantage of it.

The retard Kovacs thinks I'm denying emotions and fear in myself, when these are fundamental factors in my positions.
Why would I waste my time with every imbecile who thinks he knows what I'm about and yet has no clue what my basic positions are, by addressing them as an individual?
I use them to respond to general concepts.
So when I respond to the turd Kovacs my audience is not him, because little of what he says interests me.
Will I correct him?
No.
Who cares?  
What I will do, instead, is take some stupidity he posted and use it to address a general, popular, trend.  

Like the bovine-boy mooooo and his reversible "suffering is also a degree of pleasure" insinuation.
Will I respond to it?
No, but Lyssa did a hell of a job.
Will I use it to expand upon my views on a general trend called perspectivism and how it is used to escape?
Yes.

I dare you to ask shit-Stain to explain what my positions are.
He'll give you the "he's a bitter, old, loser, who is angry at the world because he's a failure, then he'll tell you how great he is...and so on, but he will have no clue.
He only knows that of what he understands he does not like it.

So, why would I address this piece off feces as an individual?
Nothing he says, his daily whimsical nothings, interest me.
He doesn't know what he thinks. one day he's anti-race, the next he's admitting there are differences between the races but we should treat them bad; one day he's anti-sexism the other he's calling females hos; one day he's a humanitarian the next he bragging about selling drugs to dumb cunts and fucking them, making them do things for him; he pretends to be an outsider and his entire thinking is that of an insider.
He's all over the place because he is clueless...a pure hedonist.

He is only interesting as a sociological specimen, by far not an exception but a rule.

Did you see mooo now distancing himself from hedonism after spending months defending it?

Mo told me all the way back in march that he is not a hedonist, and he did that over and over in this thread.
If you read honestly, you will see that he is not defending hedonism as a position that he holds, but he is arguing that lyssa's definition of hedonism is erroneous, and he is providing her with a correct one.

If I tell you the difference between a cigarette and a cigar, that does not imply that I smoke.

phoneee wrote:

Mo told me all the way back in march that he is not a hedonist, and he did that over and over in this thread.
If you read honestly, you will see that he is not defending hedonism as a position that he holds, but he is arguing that lyssa's definition of hedonism is erroneous, and he is providing her with a correct one.

If I tell you the difference between a cigarette and a cigar, that does not imply that I smoke.

What about you playa...are you a hedonist on are you "just" a simple woman, desperate for emotional connections?

Do cultivate the man-child, spider-woman.

I'm anything you want me to be.