Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

Magnus Anderson wrote:

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.)

not sure what you mean by this. by willing i imagine you mean an inside intent. i dont know how having a mental intent affects your ability to heal.

By willing I mean forcing yourself to perform certain mental action (not necessarily physical action.) Willing is strenuous. People who think a lot know this (I can think myself into headaches and dizziness, for example.)

Hmm, maybe it's 'better' to change the environment (to rearrange how we live) and this in turn affects our mental development. To not force oneself willfully into a way of thinking but to expose oneself to changes willfully created in the environment.

Ressentiment

'Hate the sin and not the sinner.'

No, hate the sinner, not the sin.
Let me not take the 'high road' and make my body resent itself.

Anfang wrote:

Ressentiment

'Hate the sin and not the sinner.'

No, hate the sinner, not the sin.
Let me not take the 'high road' and make my body resent itself.

How can one hate a "sinner"? It is but to hate a stream of everchanging, everflowing parts. Hitler is only the sum of it's parts, the sum of the world around it.

Hitler is a name people like to bring up to make themselves feel better about themselves, but Hitler is no worse than most any other nation of chimpanzee, even in deed. Yes even now they celebrate Christopher Columbus, but out of habit use Hitler as the adjective of evil.

In order to hate sin, one must hate the world, one must hate Inertia, "Yeshua". But even Yeshua is a product of Inertia, madness, moral idiocy.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Ressentiment

'Hate the sin and not the sinner.'

No, hate the sinner, not the sin.
Let me not take the 'high road' and make my body resent itself.

How can one hate a "sinner"? It is but to hate a stream of everchanging, everflowing parts. Hitler  is only the sum of it's parts, the sum of the world around it.

Hitler is a name people like to bring up to make themselves feel better about themselves, but Hitler is no worse than most any other nation of chimpanzee, even in deed. Yes even now they celebrate Christopher Columbus, but out of habit use Hitler as the adjective of evil.

In order to hate sin, one must hate the world, one must hate Inertia, "Yeshua". But even Yeshua is a product of Inertia, madness, moral idiocy.

'Hate the sin and not the sinner' sounds to me like if somebody is pushing against you then don't push back but complain about the moral 'wrongness' of this other's pushing against you.
Nature is also 'pushing' against individuals; the increase of entropy is such a 'pushing' - well it's not a will which is pushing in this case but there is attrition which has effects similar to it.

And this pushing isn't bad in itself, it's that which makes life grow by forcing it to do or die, to become or perish. And life is a continuous becoming.

So to hate the 'sinner' is to push back.

Do you hate at times (the emotion, not the intellectualized sentimental variant)?
Since you are not a-hedonist...

Anfang wrote:

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Ressentiment

'Hate the sin and not the sinner.'

No, hate the sinner, not the sin.
Let me not take the 'high road' and make my body resent itself.

How can one hate a "sinner"? It is but to hate a stream of everchanging, everflowing parts. Hitler  is only the sum of it's parts, the sum of the world around it.

Hitler is a name people like to bring up to make themselves feel better about themselves, but Hitler is no worse than most any other nation of chimpanzee, even in deed. Yes even now they celebrate Christopher Columbus, but out of habit use Hitler as the adjective of evil.

In order to hate sin, one must hate the world, one must hate Inertia, "Yeshua". But even Yeshua is a product of Inertia, madness, moral idiocy.

'Hate the sin and not the sinner' sounds to me like if somebody is pushing against you then don't push back but complain about the moral 'wrongness' of this other's pushing against you.
Nature is also 'pushing' against individuals; the increase of entropy is such a 'pushing' - well it's not a will which is pushing in this case but there is attrition which has effects similar to it.

And this pushing isn't bad in itself, it's that which makes life grow by forcing it to do or die, to become or perish. And life is a continuous becoming.

So to hate the 'sinner' is to push back.

Do you hate at times (the emotion, not the intellectualized sentimental variant)?
Since you are not a-hedonist...

What is hate but fear and love? I fear and love.

Yours is an old sentiment, that life grows through suffering. But grows to what end? So that it can further and further distance itself from Reality by means of natural selection? Natural selection would have it so that it is so rare a thing that only a miniscule set of conditions would ever have it come by. That is the snare of matter for you.

It looks to me that life grows against the current of entropy and that which does not resist that current is not alive, or let's say not-resisting sufficiently is not sustainable for a life form - too much attrition and death eventually.

The meaning is found within the organism itself. Something like the becoming in each moment is creating its trajectory - its destiny.
All the depressed tigers who refuse to eat eventually perish.
I believe that THE END, if there is one, cannot be known.

Willing is always forceful, though the word "forceful" is often associated with uncontrolled acts, acts that disconnect from one's past, disintegrate one's identity, through exaggeration and denial.

Like when you force your laugh, you can sense the sudden/abrupt change breaking your flow. That sort of thing indicates that the act has escaped the regulatory process of judgment. You feel certain, but in reality, you are uncertain and only pretending to be certain. It is exaggerated certainty, fake kind of confidence.

Disconnecting from one's identity may not be felt due to exaggerated feelings of pleasure, but return to one's original identity is always felt. It's not pleasant.

You can stress your organism any way you want, but in order to do it, you must have confidence in it.

The two, disintegration and stress, should not be conflated.

We can also say that there is no such a thing as "original" identity. Rather, our identity is naturally fragmented and either we control the transition from one fragment to another (by building the bridges) or we do not, and simply make huge leaps from one fragment to another.

Anfang wrote:

It looks to me that life grows against the current of entropy and that which does not resist that current is not alive, or let's say not-resisting sufficiently is not sustainable for a life form - too much attrition and death eventually.

I found some work on the web which demonstrates that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by evolution (http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm). In fact one might conclude that biological organisms are machines which act naturally to increase entropy, and those organisms which have a higher degree of evolution increase it the most through their activity and manipulation of matter.

The increase in order that we observe in the world results in an increase in entropy (an increase in disorder elsewhere) because the Earth is not a closed system.

That which is dead does not increase entropy as fast as what is alive, simply because it is less active. Life transforms matter into heat energy and dissipates it faster than the non-living, therefore increasing entropy.

Your thoughts please.

Recidivist wrote:

Anfang wrote:

It looks to me that life grows against the current of entropy and that which does not resist that current is not alive, or let's say not-resisting sufficiently is not sustainable for a life form - too much attrition and death eventually.

I found some work on the web which demonstrates that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by evolution

The increase in order that we observe in the world results in an increase in entropy (an increase in disorder elsewhere) because the Earth is not a closed system.

That which is dead does not increase entropy as fast as what is alive, simply because it is less active. Life transforms matter into heat energy and dissipates it faster than the non-living, therefore increasing entropy.

Your thoughts please.

2nd law states the universal entropy will increase over time.

There is no requirement for evolutionary organisms to "displace" entropy. Even if the Earth's net level of entropy decreased over time, the Universe's entropy rate would not violate the 2nd law. 2nd law doesnt say it accelerates, even if it decelerates it would still be 2nd law.

I am not so sure the 2nd law is a gaurantee, either. If the universe were to suddenly collapse as hypothesized by Hawkings theories, it would have less entropy than before.
If one created a black hole, that sucked up the whole universe, there would be less entropy than before (even though information at the center of a black hole would be garbled and jigglying, I view it as less entropy because its all one neat little glob all crunched up and cuddly.

Laws are made based on current observations. They may not be gauranteed. There may be loopholes we are not yet aware of, to be manifest in the future. For example, 5 billion years from now, if we didnt know better we would believe there was no such thing as a universe, and that our galaxy was the only thing that could be called a universe. (This is because the universe rate of expansion would exceed c, and telescopes could only percieve our galaxy.) This is what i mean by laws are based on current observations. 5 billion years from now if we lost science knowledge and started from scratch many laws about the universe would never even be discovered, and many theories would be innaccurate. We would believe the universe only contained one galaxy, and that the galaxy was the universe.

If entropy is being displaced, maybe it is our consciousness. maybe our consciousness IS the displaced entropy.
maybe a world of chaos begots little consciousness, and the organism displaces it's entropy not on Earth in the physical but as consciousness which is another form of entropy.

What are your thoughts on this?

The increase in entropy (increase in chaos) can be thought of as energy dispersal.
You linked an interesting movie which explained this, in a Thermodynamics thread, I think.
There are different kinds of 'energies' - What they always are, no matter what kind, is potential for processes, potential for directed change.

One would be about the dispersal of energy via the means of 'temperature dispersal', another one would be the dispersal of an ordered state like the shattering or slow decay (accumulating errors in its structure, its pattern) of a crystal.
A third one would be about the dispersal of chemical potential (which is the change from an energetically less favored state to a state more favored - in other words from a less probable state to more probable one, which would also be an increase in entropy).
And so on...


The sun is radiating light and a bit of it arrives on the surface of the Earth.
Those photons carry energy. This energy is absorbed by certain proteins in plants (like bacteriorhodopsin). And this protein works as a so called protein-pump.
It takes the energy carried by the photon and transmutes it into a bio-chemical-gradient. It pumps proteins from one reservoir into another reservoir within the plant cells.
In one reservoir are now much more H+ ions than the other reservoir and if there were a funnel then there would be a net flow of H+ ions from the H+ rich reservoir to the other reservoir (that would be energy dispersal).
And there is a funnel, an ATPase, a protein which works similar to a generator. It's a funnel where the H+ ions drive a turbine which generates ATP by attaching a phosphate molecule to an ADP molecule. The generated ATP is the main fuel for all chemical reactions in living organisms.


So energy is absorbed from the photon and passed on via organic molecules in form of bio-chemical potentials.

In every step there is an increase in overall entropy because with every step no energy is gained, only potentially 'wasted' - dispersed.
The exchange and transmutation of energy is always accompanied with an increase in overall entropy.
Ultimately the sun is providing for all those processes.

I think of life as something which can grow and sustain itself where there is a directed flow of energy.
For example, those bacterias which can sustain themselves under water in the deep sea, close to under-sea-volcanos can live in that environment because there is a constant directed flow of energy on a macroscopic level. Definitely larger than the life form.
So to sustain a complex life form, there needs to be a lot of energy flow. That's why animals have to eat plants and other animals because they need more energy than something like photosynthesis could provide for them. The higher the density of this energy flow which can be grabbed by an organism the more complex it can potentially grow.

In other words, modern society without 'cheap'* fuel (oil in particular) would/will revert back to a less complex form of social organization.
(abundant in relation to the organism's complexity)

Not sure its such a simple equation. Solar fuel is "cheaper" than oil though.

The thing about oil is it is lazy, but how lazy? You gotta make these giant oil rigs, large crews lots of work, then you gotta refine it, then build complicated car machines with controlled explosions to harness the fuel source.

solar fuel and alternative fuel seems a bit lazier, theres less fuel power but harnessing it seems easier and more lazy in the digital age of home-ready computing, no greasy hands, no controlled explosions, simple plug n play.

would society crumble without oil? probably not, worst case scenario would be people riding their bikes to the local farms, and a couple weeks of retrofitting the trucks to use alternative power, meanwhile diverting all other trucks to use the last remaining tidbits of oil left, until the retrofitting is complete.

now if society waited to the very last minute, till every last drop of oil was gone in everyones car and every gas station, well there would probably be food shortages and pillaging, until silicon valley delivered all of the proper upgrades to the major towns. towns without tech centers nearby and were isolated from major cities would either learn hunting and agriculture or perish.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Not sure its such a simple equation. Solar fuel is "cheaper" than oil though.

The problem with solar fuel is that it's not there when you need it. You have to convert it, to store it and that's not easy at all. I think nature has provided the most efficient way of converting solar energy and storing it and that's organic matter - Plants, wood and so forth.

Pretty much the best and most efficient way to get your energy is hydropower but that's only available in very limited amounts.

They are thinking about turning back on the coal plants in Europe at the moment and all of that despite green-energy being the politically correct way to think. It's just not feasible, not for quite some time, if ever.

But then I don't believe in the singularity prediction. God is dead? Then maybe science is almighty, if not today then tomorrow? Yeah... I don't think so myself.

Screw solar.

Fission plants: dependable, robust, proven, technology.

'But what about radioactive spew? Meltdowns? No, we just can't have that!'

In every case where a plant failed it was because a corner was cut, not because the principles behind the technology aren't sound.

Fission plants.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Screw solar.

Fission plants: dependable, robust, proven, technology.

'But what about radioactive spew? Meltdowns? No, we just can't have that!'

In every case where a plant failed it was because a corner was cut, not because the principles behind the technology aren't sound.

Fission plants.

Thorium based fission reactors maybe.
Uranium is not that abundant anymore.

True, 'here'.

Out 'there' there's enough.

We shoulda been mining near-earth bodies for twenty, thirty, years now.

My eight year old, this morning, asked me what was going on there.

I had the tv on when he stumbled into the living room and the talkin’ heads were -- for the umpteenth time -- foisting up 'Baltimore'.

I thought about it then asked him this: 'If *Mr. George did sumthin' that pissed us off and we, becuz we were pissed off, burned our own house down, what would you call that?'

'That would be crazy, Uncle’.

I said, "that's what happening over there, Monkey...somebody did sumthin' that pissed off some folks and now those folks are burning down their own houses.'

'But that's crazy, Uncle!'

'Yes, Beast, it is.'

'nuff said.









*a neighbor

Is this a group strategy? For instance, certain words loosing their intended meaning and becoming powerful tools that gain power via their assimilation by certain groups that have an interest in the uses they have. Like racism or a fascist, loosing its meaning and becoming a button which when pressed automatically renders the one attacking to be dismissed within certain groups of people. A way for the people with a common interest, such as dismissing uncomfortable truths that might shatter their egos and comfortably numbing views, to preserve themselves when put in a situation when they cant present any intellectual counter-argument. When one of the members of the group meets such obstacle he uses this word to automatically dismiss the attacker and goes back to the group in which he is the one being 'right' as the other individuals are supporting him in order to ensure/increases the chances of them being able to do the same when the invader might come. As the group gets bigger, the illusions can get bigger too as it is easy for a mind that wants to be deceived to be deceived by the number and its supposed ability to determine value and truth. Like materialism, where the reality (what one is, genetics) can be dismissed by buying nike shoes or some shit like that and the nature replaced by the shared values that are accepted within the particular group.
This is fascinating, similar to the feminists, MRA who use a similar tactic combined with the equally fascinating selfishness through selflessness.
This forum is fascinating, people tackling reality so bravely in an age where reality is dismissed because it the policies are based on lies and many people have been hurt by the reality due to their weakness and wish to dismiss it. I laughed at some people who, for instance, stated that Satyr or other members are not in touch with what is going on - I myself after reading this forum and listening to the videos begin to see the patterns that are spoken about here and begging to observe that the reality proves that what is said here is true.

There's an awful number of folks meandering about in the world who willingly, with pride, declare themselves bio-automata (toasters).

As toasters they hold themselves wholly un-responsible for any- and every-thing they do (but, sure as shit, they're quick to wag a finger at another [declaring such finger-waggin' as just another act they have no responsibility for]).

Makes me tired...makes me sad.

Woman's liberation is a matriarchy

What is 'liberation'? To have the power to make your own choices.
Society is an arrangement of power structures, hierarchies of who gets the power and how.
The 'liberation' is empowerment and empowerment comes in every society at the expense of the power of other members.
One can never be 'liberated' enough, never empowered enough, there is always someone or something which is limiting one's freedom of choices and there are prices to be paid. That's all understood as not being liberated by today's way of thinking.
So liberation is the maximization of power, a continuous struggle for dominance.
A mob-based matriarchy.

Anfang wrote:

Woman's liberation is a matriarchy

What is 'liberation'? To have the power to make your own choices.
Society is an arrangement of power structures, hierarchies of who gets the power and how.
The 'liberation' is empowerment and empowerment comes in every society at the expense of the power of other members.
One can never be 'liberated' enough, never empowered enough, there is always someone or something which is limiting one's freedom of choices and there are prices to be paid. That's all understood as not being liberated by today's way of thinking.
So liberation is the maximization of power, a continuous struggle for dominance.
A mob-based matriarchy.

Except when you think who put them to it... and whose arche it really is.

Lyssa wrote:

Except when you think who put them to it... and whose arche it really is.

That kind of liberation reminds me of the liberation of the proletariat.
It's a resentful view of life.
Resentment can be a powerful driving force with the objective of destroying the resented thing at the end.

So it's not a matriarchy because someone put men and women up to it?
They have become what they have become. Their potential developed along those lines.

Anfang wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Except when you think who put them to it... and whose arche it really is.

That kind of liberation reminds me of the liberation of the proletariat.
It's a resentful view of life.
Resentment can be a powerful driving force with the objective of destroying the resented thing at the end.

No doubt.

Quote :

So it's not a matriarchy because someone put men and women up to it?
They have become what they have become. Their potential developed along those lines.

No. I think modernity is more a phenomenon about what it consistently opposes and wants to thwart, than a positive definition of power. If you think about feminism including not only those Mothers who want to eliminate the fathers and raise their children alone, and not only those feminists who bear abs. hatred against the whole idea of motherhood making the word matriarchy ironic, but also now Transgenders and Homos and Pedos. being given the right to raise children, an increasingly genderless society,,, then modernity and feminism is no longer about whose power it supports as much as who it opposes, retards, diminishes and wants to effectively and essentially make extinct. The male spirit. Its why I think Feminization is an apt title to describe what's occuring today and whose arche it is. Because then, this could be endless... we would be calling it a Transarchy or Pedoarchy or Homoarchy...

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

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

The first time I heard the word matriarchy I thought it's like patriarchy just with women instead of men.
Then later I heard it's different, better, no violence and so on, whatever is deemed better by the narrator.
Yes, it is definitely different.
Spirit>Passion>Reason in my estimation, when using that Triforce.

The patriarchy, once formalized, made into a civilizational idea and not a culture being lived, with the actions performed and the prices being paid, was already on its way of changing into what is now.

How do you know whether or not you are actually living in a totalitarian society?
Would it be obvious?

Progress:
Society is continuously getting better, progress is being made.
Whatever the latest ideal, it's true and better than the last one.
You don't even have to think about whether or not something else would be better for you, you can rest assured that being up-to-date is the best you can be, the best for you.

Which group is it forbidden to criticize, or to question their narratives?

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