Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

Yep.

My apologies Anfang, I promised you applaud, lots of it - and fame..
Instead one of them took a look on my profile and this person seemingly liked something else what I had written and thus shared it with his/her audience, a audience who just could not stop ''liking'' but could also not understand what I had written, even though it was clear..

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

Seemingly I am depressive, my heart is on its wrong place, I cannot take ownership of my emotions and I am a egoistic dick head (thus dick heads should not be egoistic and should penetrate indiscriminately ''without ego''..).

Really, what is the point of ''being liked'' by such zombies if they like without consideration, just because some person they seemingly respect, could respect what I wrote and shared it with them who just like it because (s)he liked it...


A original thinker; as original as wiping shit over a white wall..

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

I saw that long list of replies and wondered what that was about.
Looks like that 'poem' actually had quite an unintentional impact. haha

And yes I think most of them actually don't understand what is being said.
That circle thinks of the words ego and selfish as something bad.
Distinctiveness on a biological level and thoughts which work in favor of achieving this distinctiveness are seen as a threat. So if you base your discrimination on biological reality then you are seen as being evil.

What a view..
Entering a train - a means of transportation which looks like a sausage of cowsheds, kinda ''squarey''.
Looking outside through the squarey window at the squarey cultivated farm landscapes for which the Netherlands is known..
Then slowly entering the ''civilized'' gathering, passing by some square buildings with flat square rooftops ''decorated'' with square windows and some having the privilege of square balconies..
Deeper into ''civilization'', it is where I can find squares, circles and triangles in all colours and sizes - as if I live in a abstracted symbol-world where trees too become linear ''perfect'' without any twists in the branches..

To blame and to hate

To blame is to put responsibility into the hands of someone else. The responsibility for our well-being. This ties us to the one we blame.
Hate is a process which makes us realize how much we are tied to the thing we hate and which gives us a chance to create a distance to that thing so that we can loosen that bond.

Nothing like watching the Oscars to get a feel of where the American culture is heading, or what are its current goals.

First thing to comment on is the nervous jokes about the decadence being present, to an audience of poor and desperate citizens watching the proceedings on the tube.  
Glitter and glamour on display.
They had to make a joke about it to release the tensions.
how funny when rich blacks and women talk about the wrongs of a system they serve so eloquently.
A room full of rich, women, blacks and whites, talking about social issues, and civil rights, and how bad blacks have it, and how unfair the system is to women.

The usual angles were covered, which included allusion to the "mystery of love", as if it were not even a romantic idealistic hypothesis.
Love = God, and God is always mystifying, and all-unifying.

The only "visible minorities", to be recognized, it would seem, were the blacks.
It's a way of explaining why they fair so badly, when other visible minorities thrive.
Years of "affirmative actions" and they cannot rise up from the gutter they feel so at home in.
The genetic factors delivered as this excuse that plays the victim card.
This year the victim group on center stage were the Negroes, most of which are of mixed blood, and only choose to identify with being black because it's cool, these days, in style, and the perfect victim-card to play.
We can forget that other blacks were the ones supplying the "evil white men" of yore with black slaves.

It almost seems like no other people ever suffered slavery.
It's monopolized by American Negroes, this status of wronged slave, just as Jews are the only ones to have been killed in times of war...although the numbers, and the reasons, are never to be questioned without risking jail.
So much for "Charlie hebdo" and free speech.

Next year, I'm sure, we'll get holocaust movies, or movies with some reference to the suffering of the "chosen" to suffer, ones.
Those who find identity in being hated.

Hollywood can't find any stories about other peoples being killed, en masse, like the Armenians, or the Native Americans.
The last suffering one of the worse holocausts, on a percentage level, ever perpetrated in the history of man.
Instead we have those depictions of appreciative, contrite, white men, in "Dances with Wolves" or a comedic ridicule as in "Little Big Man", or the usual cowboy movies where good Yankees fight the savages to protect their women-folk and the western, Christian, way of life.
Try selling to brain-dead imbeciles the idea that they, the offspring of European riff-raff, completely destroyed an entire people on a scale unprecedented in the history of mankind.
And they, despite selling the idea of the evil Russians who will destroy mankind with a nuclear holocaust, are the only nation to have ever used these weapons.
So there they were, a room full of rich American women, and blacks, selling the idea that women have it bad, and that the only reason blacks are over-represented in jails is because they are black.

The movie American "Sniper," depicting the glorification of a practice once considered cowardice (that of sniping), was meant to sell the idea that drones flown by remote control by kids who had no idea what real war was about was an honorable occupation, a brave job - the redefinition of warrior: a coward raining down death with a remote control device, sitting in an air-conditioned room full of gadgets.
A kill-count of over 160 makes this "warrior" a hero, when mass murderer would be more appropriate, given that those numbers include women and children.
The image of a "warrior" suffering, because of what he must do, and not high-fiving his comrades, makes the once cowardly act of killing at a distance an honorable act of a warrior suffering for what he has done...or did he actually enjoy his work?

One wonders what types are attracted to join the army, or the police force, these days.

Sociopaths.
desperate men-children wanting to kill for the sake of killing, just to feel powerful?

Do not hedonists focus on the pleasure of the act, rather than the utility?
Yes, the pleasure of killing, should be the individual's reward, because he has no clue as to why he would do so otherwise, except for some poem about "the American way of life" and how "they hate us because of what we stand for and because they envy our freedoms".
All it takes for the crowd to rise out of their seats, cheering, are some catch-phrases repeated in the same emotionally laden delivery.

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

Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lopez going into a fit of spasmodic appreciation, in their million dollar outfits, when Arquette delivered the usual feminist speech.
Arquette is known for her activism, and liberal leanings, epxressing the usual leftist, liberal, romantic ideals.

Jennifer, being a woman who can be safely summed up as no more than tits-and-ass, making millions by selling such memorable hits as...


If there's one person who should remain silent when words like gender pay equity and objectification of women are mentioned it is her.

Notice the chimpanzee, herd behavior of a dominant female inspiring a lesser to holler in supportive unison.

The new schtick now is this sudden emergence of the "strong, thinking, activist" woman, who will make a difference and finally bring about the total uniformity of interchangeable body parts.

Satyr wrote:

The new schtick now is this sudden emergence of the "strong, thinking, activist" woman, who will make a difference and finally bring about the total uniformity of interchangeable body parts.

Moderns are so hopelessly desperate for the new Jesus, a Messiah, some savior figure to come along with that politically-correct honey-toned voiced that captures the primal sensuality while numbing intellectuality.  

If its not Oprah Winfrey, it's Emma Watson, if not her, Arquette. They are so, so desperate to find themselves in another, given how hollow and shallow they are, that no matter how typical and unremarkably common this other is, as long as they have the initiative to announce themselves on a podium or in some other '15 minute fame' spotlight, that person automatically becomes something they will never be, not out of actual quality of character or intelligence, but simply out of circumstance. I still recall the madness of how drunk millions were on their mindless appreciation, when the first negro ran for president. But of course it had NOTHING to do with his skin color.

Next it will be some politically active 14 year old feminist female who distinguishes herself in the art scene by, who the hell knows what kind of gruesome sexual art creations that will no doubt have the usual morons believing in the sanctity of her "genius". Her IQ will probably be vigorously tested and found to be supernaturally high.

The religious and superstitious affinity is so pronounced in the modern mind beneath all of their realist veneers you could cut it with a knife. i am convinced that if some global apocalyptic catastrophe were to actually happen, all of their precious rationalistic biases would be cast off in an instant and they would succumb to Christian delusions of judgment day. They would retreat to churches or synagogues, or fall to their knees and make their last prayers.

Is a teacher in Arabic ''arrogant'' for judging others, pupils, to be lesser in understanding in regards with the Arabic language; thus Inferior.
Or is his judgment a means of improvement for his pupils and a possible ending through his judgment due to the incapability of some - to learn and understand.
It would be hypocritical, in certain hierarchal positions and circumstances, to not judge in regards with his superiority, making a value judgment through comparing.


Each bicycle has its own value.
I have two bicycles, one of 30 Euro and one of 600 Euro.
Each has its own value for me; the most expensive one is of the highest quality, of course, otherwise I would not make such an investment compared with the one with lesser value.
The one of 600 Euro I use almost daily and keep within reach, thus at home and has two locks on it for when I am away after I have used it as a means of transportation, to make a walk elsewhere for example.

The bicycle with lesser value has one lock and is of a much lesser quality.
I use this bicycle in order to get me from the metro station to work and back; I leave it at the station during each night and in the weekends. Thus its quality and value is in its replaceability; low value through low quality and quantities.

Just because this bicycle is of a lesser quality and has lesser value for me, does not mean that I ''feel too superior'' to use it; in contrary, I am happy to have this glued scrap metal bicycle so that I do not have to risk my higher quality bicycle to be stolen, or simply to be missed.

Each object and person and organism has its own value depending on demands, the circumstances, the environemnt, its qualities and endurance.

Propriety - Having property and piety.
Property through piety.
Property signifying piety.

Concerning latent traits...

What exists appears, and it is (inter)active (objective world).
It appearance is dynamic, and perception of it is an interpretation of this (inter)activity by the observer, the subjective.
The subjective mind, interpreting, is also dynamic, and so it discovers self as it would discover other.
Consciousness precedes self-consciousness, making the Delphic maxi "Know Thyself" uncertain, a gradual process, and decisive.
It is not a foregone guarantee that you can know yourself, in any degree superior than an other can know you, because ignorance proceeds towards gnosis, and along the way it can be corrupted by emotion, self-interest, hyperbole, and so on.
A human, as an example, can know an ape, more than it can know itself, and a mind immersed in emotion, in self-flattery, in nihilistic despair seeking to escape reality and find certainty, comfort, the eternal, the absolute, will not attain the clarity required to perceive self, and to then accept what is perceived, in relation, always, to otherness - because self is part of a dynamic, (inter)active world.

Not all individual organisms have the same sensual acuity, nor the same processing and analytic brain-speed, and brain quality.
And so what appears is not perceptible to all to the same degree.

Some appearances make themselves noticed indirectly.
for example the human digestive system cannot be perceived by a human, but its effects can.
The individual's sex organs may be covered up, willfully, and yet the effect of the hormones, then processes, that develop them will be noticeable through other organs, or other details.
A steel bar may appear unchanging and yet that it appears means there is a fluctuation which the mind is interpreting. It's rate of change might be slow, interpreting by the mind as solid, mass, hardness, etc.....but it's flux can be discerned indirectly, in time, as change - via a comparison using memory. the juxtaposition happens via memory where the rate of change, despite its slowness, becomes evident even to the human sense organ.

But, this is a secondary perception, because the steel bar by the mere fact that it appears, displays its flux, and is only interpreted as solid, in relation to another element, or in relation to the observer, who is also dynamic.

In the case of latent genetic predispositions we can begin with the previous and proceed to make some conclusions which may be more, or less likely
Human sensual acuity is not sensitive enough to pick-up the appearance of latent genes, and, perhaps, the indirect expressions of these latent genes.
Man invents tools, techniques/technologies, to multiply his sensual awareness.

The inheritance of a dormant gene which may not express itself to a degree where it becomes perceptible to the human observer, is the inheritance of a past/nature which may be triggered, due to environmental factors (interactions) to then proceed to gradually become noticeable.
As the effects of the gene is triggered uot of dormancy to express itself at an unpredictable rate, the effects of this gene gradually reach a degree where a human can perceive it without the aid of technologies, and no matter how weak his senses are, or how unsophisticated his mind is - unable to discern details that may already expose this dormant gene in subtle ways.

When I speak of "interpretation" (subjective) of the (inter)active (objective) I imply a simplification/generalization which may, in the process of simplifying/generalizing, lose data (lost in interpretation, if you will).

This "lost" data is not really lost.
It may either be imperceptible to the observer, or it may be so subtle and/or complex that it cannto be integrated into a cohesive mental model (abstraction).
I believe that all this lost data is then processed in dreams, or it lingers in the subconscious until some other data trigger it, and manage to integrate it in a mental model more sophisticated than the one which it could not be integrated within.
We see here latent genetic codes, becoming latent memetic codes.....

Memes being extensions of genes follow the exact same routes and exhibit the exact same interactions (behaviors).
This is why I claim that gender is not a human construct but a memetic extension of genetic behavior.
The idea that gender is a human fabrication is one of those favorite escape routes used by modern nihilists to discredit and reject the past/nature.

I've said so before;
It is Modern ideologies which attempt to reinvent humanity, using social engineering (political correctness, marketing, psychology, education, peer pressure etc, being methods of training the mind to believe he is other than what he is).
It is they who in their haste to discredit gender roles as fabrications also throw the baby out with the bathwater, insinuating a "humanity" so detached from reality, that it can only be considered mystical, if not vague and delusional.

Look at how in their desperation to escape judgments, or superior-inferior labels they, preach the absence of "better" and then act in contradiction to their own opinions, their own ideals.
Look at how in their haste to detach lust from love, or selfishness from individuality, or beauty from symmetry they become clowns desperately inventing these magical words, that refer to nothing but to their shared, communal dis-ease, and disillusionment, and disgust with existence, as it is.
Look at how they invent a concept "humanity" void of sexuality, detaching, in effect, the species category from all other species categories, which have to do with reproduction, simply to then avoid the unpleasantness of sexual types, and the dysfunction of homosexuality.


They love word games...because for them words are not tools of attachment (attaching the noumenon with the phenomenon; the subjective with the objective) but of detachment, of escape, of hiding from a world they find themselves hating, and a self, within this world, which they find themselves rejecting as disappointing.

These are the products we buy, this is how we talk about things,...
This is what and how we think ...


This is how we hunt, how courtship works, how we make our clothes, how we live,...
This is what and how we do it....

Good to be wicked

If the common notion is that man is innately good then you better become wicked. It will provide an advantage and furthermore when enough wickedness has been spawned the common notion about man will eventually change and being good will be worth something again.

'Good' and 'wicked' may be replaced with all kinds of opposing qualities.

Independence

There are always dependencies.
So what is this independence actually about?

What this so called independence does, is to make all social connections into willful connections and to keep them on that level.
Bonds which grow beyond willfulness are thought of as not being 'independent'.
Bonds which are beyond willfulness, something which could be called organic bonds, are and have been severed.
A new man - Man J.0

>>>
Strength is the overcoming, the mastery of weakness. A growth in complexity.
Independence is a reversal of that development and is based on gaining strength via suppression of needs. Part of the body is sacrificed to gain an advantage within social dynamics.

I consider independence to be psychological and not social. Social independence is a symptom which is not uniquely associated with psychological independence. A man can be socially independent while still being psychologically dependent, and vice versa.

Psychological independence is the capacity for the will to detach from its body and environment. It is a reduction of consciousness necessary to preserve mental health in overwhelming situations. People incapable of detachment detach by attaching to a subgroup of instincts, denying all other instincts -- selective/partial detachment where one detaches from one group of instincts by attaching to another.

Self-consciousness is necessary to understand the will-body relation. Otherwise, one will be obliged to understand everything in terms of symptoms, in terms of what is outside of oneself. And that's how most people understand the concept of independence . . .

We are all dependent in the sense that our health is dependent upon whether our will works with our body or against it. If will attaches to instincts in order to order them, then this is healthy dependence; if will attaches to instincts in order to detach, then this is unhealthy dependence.

Will - body - world: these should not be conflated with each other.

Body includes everything automatic about it, including the brain.

Our health is determined by:

1. Internal interactions of our body
2. Interaction of the body with the world
3. Interaction of the will with the body

There is this idea that every sickness, every weakness, is ressentimental. Zoot Allures mentioned something along the line over at ILP. This is, of course, wrong.

We do not choose the world and we do not choose our bodies. So whether we are sick and weak is not our choice and can never be, no matter how strong and healthy we are.

Ressentiment is will disordering its body (i.e. weak-willedness.) The body itself can be healthy or it can be sick, it does not matter. So a strong man can be ressentimental just as a weak man can be strong-willed. A coward can be brave and a brave man can be cowardly. It all depends on whether one's will orders one's body or disorders it. As soon as one's will loses its strength, the value of one's body becomes inverted. The stronger you were, the more degenerate you are now.

One is ressentimental insofar one prefers to destroy oneself rather than to allow the other to destroy him.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

I consider independence to be psychological and not social. Social independence is a symptom which is not uniquely associated with psychological independence. A man can be socially independent while still being psychologically dependent, and vice versa.

To me this independence is a concept which hatched and is promoted by people of a certain quality. Yes it is based in a psychology but then I also think that this particular kind of psychology evolved in a heavily socialized, civilized society.

What is independent/detached, is the 'will' from the 'instincts' which then manifests in 'independent' social connections and that's what has been promoted as becoming 'independent'.

While being more socially independent, as in relying less on other people can be different from that.

The detachment of will from instincts and in-forming of the will is for example what occurred in feminism, among other movements.

There are too many subtleties here, so we must be careful lest we become confused.

The same phenomenon can be explained using opposite terms. This is very dangerous.

Attachment can be explained as detachment, and vice versa. Since I have not defined the target, it must be assigned arbitrarily, and this can lead to confusion.

Attachment to and detachment from what?
This is what is lacking.

In my case, this is selection of senses.

My attachment is attachment to selection of senses. This is detachment from totality of senses.

Similarly, my detachment is detachment from selection of senses. This is attachment to totality of senses.

Strong will is the capacity to detach from the details (selection) and attach to the big picture (totality.)

We all have a limit as to how much information we can process. When this limit is exceeded, we have to find a way to get rid of the excess.

Strong will does so by reducing consciousness, weak will by increasing consciousness. The former detaches completely, the latter detaches by attaching to something else. The former endures chaos, the latter denies chaos by creating chaos.

I call them total detachment (Nietzsche's active forgetting) and partial detachment (Freud's reactive forgetting, repression, denial.) The essential point is that forgetting is not bad per se. What is bad is this creation of chaos that reactive forgetting entails.

Spot phoneutria. She hates to be exposed for what she is (she only perceives this exposure as a negative feeling, she never interprets, so she has no idea what I'm talking about.) So in order to make it difficult for other people to expose her, she starts acting randomly, disconnecting from her identity. This is will disordering its body, or creating chaos.

Will zooms into (attaches to) and zooms out of (detaches from) the body. Without the will, the body degenerates. This is why will has to attach to it. Still, there are situations when will cannot intervene and must detach. Failure to do so leads to partial detachment, or will disordering the body.

Nihilism is this abuse of the will. This is how it starts.

When I wrote 'will' I was thinking about the part of the self which is being self-aware about itself at a given time. Probably there is more to it though.

I meant 'detached' in a more general sense, as in out of touch with the instincts, having only a quite limited understanding of ones' instincts in a given situation.
And if there is an understanding present then it's being dismissed, which, now that I think about it, must be because of some value-system which trumps the natural instincts. A value-system which the individual is conscious about yet does hold as something 'divine', something always above its own conscious self-awareness in its internal understanding of hierarchy within the psyche-soma.

In that sense, detachment from the instincts and attachment to a value-system.

As I understand nihilism, it's when someone is looking for meaning in values and ideals themselves. It comes about because of the mechanization of life, creating a 'ghost in a shell' kind of man.
Maybe one way how to escape this despair associated with the realization of the meaninglessness of values and ideals in-themselves, is to find new values, new ideals, quickly enough before they become stale again, progressively so.

But perhaps that's actually not all that different from your 'selection of senses' because, what is this 'value-system'?
The will is instrumental in the rearrangement of those instincts and I haven't grasped how and what myself, but perhaps it becomes destructive when the power to rearrange the mind is present but a sense of overall integrity is not.
Maybe too much feminine and not enough masculine in quality.

Will, for me, is the capacity to break from one’s pattern of behavior, to change, to disorder, one’s body. Willing is simulation of chaos.

Will is both free and unfree. It is free in the sense that one can issue any command one wishes. It is unfree in the sense that different commands have different consequences for one’s body.

Will destroys, tears apart, stresses, disorders (Apollo.) Body produces, heals, relaxes, orders (Dionysus.)

Will is the cycle of destruction, body is the cycle of production. Together they make a cycle of seduction (Baudrillard’s terms.)

The modern is obsessed with inorganic production (the rise of social and technological systems) which is necessarily organic destruction (the downfall of biological systems.)

Weightlifting is a physical example of simulated chaos. One willfully tears one’s muscles apart and then one rests waiting for the muscles to heal.

Self-criticism is a mental example of simulated chaos. One willfully questions oneself (we can say “tear one’s brain apart”) and then one rests waiting for the brain to heal.

Will becomes abusive, destructive, masochistic and nihilistic when Apollo denies Dionysus, which is to say, when one stops healing oneself (like a weightlifter who never takes a break.)

Willing must be tightly controlled lest one unlearn how to heal.

Healing is will-less, requiring of will to completely detach from its body.

People used to willing have a difficulty detaching completely. They detach partially, by attaching to something else. Like a woman who can dump her husband only by attaching to another husband. Unable to relax, they will to relax.

Think rebound relationships. Unable to get over a break-up by enduring, which is to say by detaching from, painful emotions, one attaches to another relationship, thereby denying the fact that there was a break-up.

Now think generally. What happens is that one detaches from a group of senses one considers “bad” or “evil” because they have become too uncomfortable/uncertain and attaches to a group of senses one considers “good” because they are comfortable/certain. A reduction of totality to a selection, that’s what it is.

Consider how moderns reduce totality of the universe to a selection of the universe, to “what people think”. Their bodies may be screaming at them that they are weak, unhealthy and ugly, but if others insist that they are strong, healthy and beautiful, then they must be strong, healthy and beautiful. Or consider how Internet is dismissed as being “unreal” because what people on the Internet say goes against what one’s family and friends say.

Different drugs for different folks. As soon as trusted senses (we can call them “authority”) become uncertain, one starts looking for another group of senses one can trust (for a new “authority”.)

What is denied and what is exaggerated, and the manner in which it is denied and exaggerated, defines a particular type of nihilism.

Hedonism/optimism: negative feelings denied, positive feelings exaggerated.
Masochism/pessimism: positive feelings denied, negative feelings exaggerated.
Science: emotions denied, reason exaggerated.
Pseudo-science: reason denied, emotions exaggerated.
Individualism: similarities denied, differences exaggerated.
Collectivism: differences denied, similarities exaggerated.
etc etc etc.

I should also add some nerd-terms, or I like to call them hipster terms or retard terms.

the three main ones that pop in my mind are racism, feminism, and the patriarchy.

Patriarchy - when confronted about this, the modern hipster will then say something like "well the patriarchy may be run by women and men. but it is still the paternal patriarchy."

this is retarded, for this reason I always use the word panopticon instead of patriarchy.

Racism - they modern retard will say "blacks cannot be racist" "racism is systemic" and when you tell them "what about blacks being in a crowd, ganging up on a white person, isnt that the larger group of people in that scenario" they will say no its still not racist just "prejudice" and will fall back on their retarded delusions about the planet earth being the absolute measure of scale and 'systemicism' and other bullcrap they pull out their ass.

feminism - the modern retard will say "support feminism because it fights for minorities, blacks latinos and equality among males." if so why call it feminism, why not just call it something else, such as fighting for equality.

of course the modern retard will offer more babble to back up his twisting of words and phrases so i recommend to use the following words "retard, feminism, racism and patriarchy" with care, lest one be ganged up on by a pack of retards or e-tards.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Will, for me, is the capacity to break from one’s pattern of behavior, to change, to disorder, one’s body. Willing is simulation of chaos.

Will is both free and unfree. It is free in the sense that one can issue any command one wishes. It is unfree in the sense that different commands have different consequences for one’s body.

Will destroys, tears apart, stresses, disorders (Apollo.) Body produces, heals, relaxes, orders (Dionysus.)

Will is the cycle of destruction, body is the cycle of production. Together they make a cycle of seduction (Baudrillard’s terms.)

The modern is obsessed with inorganic production (the rise of social and technological systems) which is necessarily organic destruction (the downfall of biological systems.)

Weightlifting is a physical example of simulated chaos. One willfully tears one’s muscles apart and then one rests waiting for the muscles to heal.

Self-criticism is a mental example of simulated chaos. One willfully questions oneself (we can say “tear one’s brain apart”) and then one rests waiting for the brain to heal.

Will becomes abusive, destructive, masochistic and nihilistic when Apollo denies Dionysus, which is to say, when one stops healing oneself (like a weightlifter who never takes a break.)

Willing must be tightly controlled lest one unlearn how to heal.

Healing is will-less, requiring of will to completely detach from its body.

People used to willing have a difficulty detaching completely. They detach partially, by attaching to something else. Like a woman who can dump her husband only by attaching to another husband. Unable to relax, they will to relax.

Think rebound relationships. Unable to get over a break-up by enduring, which is to say by detaching from, painful emotions, one attaches to another relationship, thereby denying the fact that there was a break-up.

Now think generally. What happens is that one detaches from a group of senses one considers “bad” or “evil” because they have become too uncomfortable/uncertain and attaches to a group of senses one considers “good” because they are comfortable/certain. A reduction of totality to a selection, that’s what it is.

Consider how moderns reduce totality of the universe to a selection of the universe, to “what people think”. Their bodies may be screaming at them that they are weak, unhealthy and ugly, but if others insist that they are strong, healthy and beautiful, then they must be strong, healthy and beautiful. Or consider how Internet is dismissed as being “unreal” because what people on the Internet say goes against what one’s family and friends say.

Different drugs for different folks. As soon as trusted senses (we can call them “authority”) become uncertain, one starts looking for another group of senses one can trust (for a new “authority”.)

What is denied and what is exaggerated, and the manner in which it is denied and exaggerated, defines a particular type of nihilism.

Hedonism/optimism: negative feelings denied, positive feelings exaggerated.
Masochism/pessimism: positive feelings denied, negative feelings exaggerated.
Science: emotions denied, reason exaggerated.
Pseudo-science: reason denied, emotions exaggerated.
Individualism: similarities denied, differences exaggerated.
Collectivism: differences denied, similarities exaggerated.
etc etc etc.

excersize does not tear the muscles apart. muscle cells gain strength from cellular expansion, not division. excersize simple fatigues them.

will does not usually tear nor destroy. destruction is no different than creation, simply reorganizing the shape and form. building legos is no different than them falling apart into entropy. will sometimes lends itself to harmony sometimes to entropy. there is not really anything as free-will, as all actions are caused, and if they are not caused, they are spontaneously created from nothing. simply, when one selects an orange from an apple, it is no different than a falling rock landing on an apple, only thing is the rock does not say "I decided to buy an apple today and i also heard an interesting conversation in my mind about why i should buy the apple today."

So you're claiming that one can grow without exerting oneself, without straining oneself, without any stress whatsoever? And when I'm lifting weights my muscles are not being destroyed but are actively growing?

Magnus Anderson wrote:

So you're claiming that one can grow without exerting oneself, without straining oneself, without any stress whatsoever? And when I'm lifting weights my muscles are not being destroyed but are actively growing?

I made no such claims. you did not get the meaning behind my words. thought i was clear but yes, excersizing fatigues your muscle cells, then you rest and they grow, not divide, but each cell expands larger. if your weight lifting destroys your cells you are over-exerting.

No, exercise damages the muscle cells, and then they either remain broken or they heal and this healing is growth.

Rest is another word for heal.

If the muscle is damaged more than the organism can deal with, beyond its aggregate energies can cope with, it dies.
healing is self-maintenance...demanding energies.
If the energies are within the organism's control it heals...stronger...if not it perishes.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

I made no such claims. you did not get the meaning behind my words. thought i was clear but yes, excersizing fatigues your muscle cells, then you rest and they grow, not divide, but each cell expands larger. if your weight lifting destroys your cells you are over-exerting.

Isn't fatigue a form of stress? A form of destruction? And can you imagine any production without destruction that is not cancerous?

There is such a thing as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but it's not my main point. Moreover, I am not a scientist, so . . .

Minor damage. What i was talking about is severe damage such as cell tearing and muscle tearing. A lot of people have the misconception that they must tear their muscle cells to jumpstart the process of cell division. Muscle cells very rarely reproduce if ever, so damage to them must be minimal and great care must be taken to ensure that the mitochondria enter the cells that were damaged during workout routines.

Quote :

When a muscle fiber develops sufficient tension for sufficient time, increasing fatigue impairs the actin/myosin cross-bridge cycling necessary for the contractile filaments to maintain force production. This impaired cross-bridge cycling under load results in trauma to the contractile filaments as some cross-bridges are subjected to tensions greater than they can structurally support. Additionally, training leads to post-workout breaches in plasma membrane integrity that allow calcium to leak into the muscle cells (there is much more calcium in the blood than in the muscle cells). This intracellular increase in calcium levels activates enzymes called ‘calpains’ which remove pieces of the damaged contractile filaments (called ‘easily releasable myofilaments’).

They release toxins, including oxygen radicals, which increase membrane permeability and phagocytize (ingest and destroy) the tissue debris that the calcium-mediated pathways released. Neutrophils don’t remain around more than a day or two, but are complimented by the appearance of monocytes also attracted to the damaged area. Monocytes (a type of phagocytic cell) enter the damaged muscle and form into macrophages (another phagocytic cell) that also release toxins and phagocytize damaged tissue. Once the phagocytic stage commences, the damaged fibers are rapidly broken down by lysosomal proteases, free O2 radicals, and other substances produced by macrophages. The muscle is now in a weaker state than before it was trained. Incidently, macrophages have an essential role in initiating tissue repair. Unless damaged muscle is invaded by macrophages, activation of satellite cells and muscle repair does not occur. Also, increased intracellular Ca++ concentrations are known to activate an enzyme called phospholipase A2.

Satyr wrote:

Not cellular damage...how are cells connected?

Muscle cells I'm not sure. However one must take great care when body building not to severely damage the cells, only slightly damage them, since muscle cells rarely reproduce and over-damage might result in cell death. By tear I mean a severe tear, such the kind of tear the comes to mind when you envision cell division. A little bit of wear on the membrane is to be expected, not a big tear though.

There is a limit as to how much stress we can take, never denied that. Take too little of it, waste your potentials; take too much of it, destroy yourself.

That is my point, in fact. Too much willing leads to inability to heal, and as a consequence of that, to becoming dependent on drugs (physical or mental, does not matter.)