Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

Is the character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Is the  character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

Only when it comes from a crazy person.

Satyr wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Is the  character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

Only when it comes from a crazy person.

Pending context, certainly, but I'm not so certain what it means to be crazy.

Satyr wrote:

Crazy= to lose control of your faculties due to passion, emotion, placing you in a state of disconnection form reality.
A permanent state of disconnection from reality, unable to correctly interpret and react to the real.

It's clearer now. So only sometimes, insofar as intent of illusion assumes a schematic to angle reality.

Satyr wrote:

I really do not know what that means.  

That intentional illusion can be efficacious for disillusionment.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Is the  character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

A woman, in which you are at least vaguely interested, called you crazy?

Anfang wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Is the  character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

A woman, in which you are at least vaguely interested, called you crazy?

Actually, other way around: the women I'm not interested in have called me crazy.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Is the  character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

A woman, in which you are at least vaguely interested, called you crazy?

Actually, other way around: the women I'm not interested in have called me crazy.

Well, at least you cared enough to wonder what those chicks mean when they call you crazy. haha
Making you wonder about them. There are different ways how to provoke.

Anfang wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Is the  character ascription "crazy" a compliment?

A woman, in which you are at least vaguely interested, called you crazy?

Actually, other way around: the women I'm not interested in have called me crazy.

Well, at least you cared enough to wonder what those chicks mean when they call you crazy. haha
Making you wonder about them. There are different ways how to provoke.

I guess it is a mannerism of affection, sort of how sometimes when a chick digs you, you upset her and then she calls you an "idiot." The connotation becomes variable in response to their own values.

Hmmm.
Maybe it's fun to get away with being disrespectful.
Men are the romantics, not women. And that's meant as a plain observation.

Anfang wrote:

Hmmm.
Maybe it's fun to get away with being disrespectful.
Men are the romantics, not women. And that's meant as a plain observation.

An emotional "letting go" as it were: a powerless empowerment, satisfying an excess urge.
Why do men use romance if women are not keen or are inconsiderate to its tenderness and gentleness - perhaps they are rather drawn to an afterthought or secondary feature or consequence which is derivative through and out of its action; for instance, confidence, persistence, etc.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Hmmm.
Maybe it's fun to get away with being disrespectful.
Men are the romantics, not women. And that's meant as a plain observation.

An emotional "letting go" as it were: a powerless empowerment, satisfying an excess urge.
Why do men use romance if women are not keen or are inconsiderate to its tenderness and gentleness - perhaps they are rather drawn to an afterthought or secondary feature or consequence which is derivative through and out of its action; for instance, confidence, persistence, etc.

I read this somewhere and Nietzsche said something similar along those lines -
Woman should love man more than the other way around.

Otherwise it isn't very stable.

Or another one -
Always assume that you are overrating a woman's interest in you.
Why would you not tend to overrate it? It's a good ego-boost but then it can be devastating to build your confidence on wishful thinking which is not grounded in reality.

Anfang wrote:

I read this somewhere and Nietzsche said something similar along those lines -
Woman should love man more than the other way around.

Otherwise it isn't very stable.

It's an arduous, even impossible for some, which separates the free spirits from the rest, I guess, as men tend to be more appreciative, observant, and driven than women.

Quote :

Or another one -
Always assume that you are overrating a woman's interest in you.
Why would you not tend to overrate it? It's a good ego-boost but then it can be devastating to build your confidence on wishful thinking which is not grounded in reality.

Can even lead to an avenue of obsession, if one is so intellectually and socially, irrevocably, inclined.

Equality of opportunity

Is making the worth of an individual about his performance within the specialized work environment.
It is also a leveling down of biology through inevitable mixing which follows in an equal opportunity kind of society and thus a leveling down of man as a consequence.
How would equality of opportunity even be a valid concept if it wouldn't come bundled with universalism and a universal good? Opportunity to do what? There is already a set of values in place which all are supposed to have this equal opportunity to live up to.

It is easy to believe in the equality of man today. Today the quality of a man is reduced to a steady hand, the use of eyes and the pull of a finger.

Is this not why glory and honor is no longer granted to the powerful today? When the modern thinks of the Spartans or the Vikings, they think of great skill and tactical wisdom. Today it is no more than a pulling of a finger - a fart for kids.

Intelligence is no longer something for pride either in the narrative today, as that is a result of environmental factors (mostly).

However I wanted to see how far the modern would take their dedication to humanism. The movie '300'...

Quote :

It’s an ugly business: brutal, racist, homophobic – dare I say fascist?

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

Surely, the ancient civilizations which enslaved others were evil. One of the largest examples of civilization, Ancient Egypt, were evil as well from their utilization of slaves. "Go tell the Spartans what a bunch of Nazis they are.." ( source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

I love how modern liberals can taunt now...

Randy Lutz wrote:

And i didnt say anything about white. My ancestry is almost 100% Scandinavian, my great grandparents got here in the 1920s and i prefer to identify with my actual ethnic background than this big group of people with white skin color who are apparently the root of all evil in the world.

liberal wrote:

Root of all evil? Hmmmm…methinks someone is feeling persecuted. The poor little lamb. His Viking ancestors must be vomiting in Valhalla over his whining

Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Meanwhile, war today has little to do with physical battle, the shirking of which from the person would have actually inspired that kind of vomiting. If the Rosario boy would like to test his theory, he can challenge Lutz to a physical duel. He wouldn't, though. He is above such barbaric means. He taunts a weakness of spirit or intellect, all of which is environmentally determined, as per the curriculum. You can see the same taunting happening from afrocentrists today. They will say white people are becoming extinct because of their inferior genes. Ignoring that they dominated for hundreds of years.

When one comes to a forum dedicated to an exchange of ideas and does not even bother to read a thread he posts his thoughts in he exposeses himself as somebody who does not come here to expand or update his worldview but rather as somebody who will stay beside his worldview irrelevant of what the other has to say due to his emotional needs. Also one exposes himself as somebody who is vulgar or cynical enough to not care of exposing himself as such desperate wreck or somebody who is too stoupid to understand that he exposes himself as somebody like that by doing what he does... Maybe somebody like that is vulgar and naive enough to think that he won't be recognized for what he is which exposes him as somebody who comes from an environment in which stoupidity is tolerated and overlooked or somewhere where stoupidity is so dense that others are not able to recoginize the stoupidity and weakness one exposes... Maybe one wants to be recognized as somebody needy, a victim thinking that he then will be appreciated and patted on the back which also suggests what kind of environment he comes from... AI PE EL comes to my mind.
****

Quote :

When one comes to a forum dedicated to an exchange of ideas and does not even bother to read a thread he posts his thoughts in he exposeses himself as somebody who does not come here to expand or update his worldview but rather as somebody who will stay beside his worldview irrelevant of what the other has to say due to his emotional needs.

That's what I do pretty much everywhere. Do you seriously think I want to read other people's thoughts? I have billions of my own thoughts and you are telling me I am supposed to read other people's thoughts? All I want to do is dump my thoughts somewhere, and so when I browse forums all I am doing is simply looking for a place where I can do so.

The more serious the forum is, the more boring it is. Check out Philosophy Forums, for example. Pretty sure there are many other as well. Well elaborated bullshit, that's what the posts on these forums are. On ILP, at least, posts are short, so you can at least read something. Most of the time, anyways.

But you are correct, there are people who respond emotionally to threads . . .

Quote :

Equality of opportunity

They invent these imaginary concepts with the tenacity of a cockroach. No matter how many concepts of this sort you debunk, they have already invented a dozen new ones, like slaying Hydra's head only to see a dozen of new ones come out.

'Equality of oppurtunity': as in, give everyone the same chance of fulfilling the possibilities existing within a particular paradigm, to begin with, certain qualities such as race, sex, and ethnicity must be de-valued and denied to exhibit potential and unique expressions.

Borders will be dropped and at first, the inhabitants will focus on the highest standard of living (the past expressions of a superior specie), as there is no potential for them to do so, and a denial of inadequacy, energies will be redirected to the incapable.

During this process standards are continuously lowering, and certain possibilities of the past move outside of the minds existing in the paradigm, so that it becomes increasingly possible for the inhabitants, to fulfill similar goals, no matter the genetic qualities.

Who is the lowest common denominator, and could such a system sustain itself against natural forces? Will it sustain order, or dwelve into primitive and brutal human dynamics? Advancements in technology play a big role in counteracting such effects.

If technology fails to move towards its very own objectives and is capable of regenerating, then the inferior, incapable human specie may die out, assuming they are not required as tools, if technology is incapable, then, at a certain stage, where technology cannot be reproduced, the fate of the human specie will move back once again, to a primitive state, given the resources exist to satisfy physiological needs.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Quote :

When one comes to a forum dedicated to an exchange of ideas and does not even bother to read a thread he posts his thoughts in he exposeses himself as somebody who does not come here to expand or update his worldview but rather as somebody who will stay beside his worldview irrelevant of what the other has to say due to his emotional needs.

That's what I do pretty much everywhere. Do you seriously think I want to read other people's thoughts? I have billions of my own thoughts and you are telling me I am supposed to read other people's thoughts? All I want to do is dump my thoughts somewhere, and so when I browse forums all I am doing is simply looking for a place where I can do so.

The more serious the forum is, the more boring it is. Check out Philosophy Forums, for example. Pretty sure there are many other as well. Well elaborated bullshit, that's what the posts on these forums are. On ILP, at least, posts are short, so you can at least read something. Most of the time, anyways.

But you are correct, there are people who respond emotionally to threads . . .

I do not meant thoughts as in single thoughts or choatic groups of thoughts. I mean ideas as well organised, sorted groups of thoughts that persue a certain goal - ideas that require careful and hard effort, time and therefore are more attractive than thoughts being dumped somewhere, anywhere. It takes much more time to develop a theory, an idea than to recieve it, understand it and assimilate it therefore I would have thought that this, some, could find attractive.
You said in the camus666 thread that you compare ideals and philosphies of other people to your own - isn't a forum a good place to do it in a safe and organised manner? Could you not take it then a little bit further and observe people online, learn about them from their thoughts posted over a period of time and thus enhance your own thoughts and ideas? But maybe this is what you mean by the last sentence about IPL.

'Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.'  Louis-Ferdinand Celine

A danger of uncontrolled rage (mania) and uncontrolled feelings of shame (depression) is resolved by detaching from both. This is detachment proper, a complete movement backward, which allows one to regain control over all of the branches of the broken focus. Otherwise one splits one's focus in one of the two directions, becoming manic or depressive. This is over-attachment and only detachment in the sense that one detaches from another branch of one's broken focus. Detachment by attachment is how I call it.

Most people are utterly incapable of complete detachment. They start, move backwards up to a point, and then attach to a random branch. The unpredictability of such a process ends up scaring them to death, forcing them to conclude that total detachment is a negative path.

Buddhists, for example, never detach completely.

Nihilists, in general, never detach completely, they simply detach from one nihilistic ideal in order to attach to another.

Nihilism is over-attachment, not detachment.

Intellectual subjectivity: over-attachment.
Intellectual objectivity: detachment.

The path isn't linear. Subjectivity isn't excessive detachment. It is not a matter of degrees. Subjectivity is the opposite, excessive attachment. Detachment does not lead to nihilism, it leads to death. It is courage.

However, if you try to center everything around the concept of reality, a different set of concepts will be developed. But this is an inferior approach.

The mind does not start with attachment (knowledge, truth, reality) it starts with detachment (ignorance, neutrality.) It starts with a calm into which drives are gradually introduced in order to establish focus.

The problem of nihilism?

Lack of knowledge and self-knowledge is not the problem.
Excess of knowledge and self-knowledge is the problem.

How is this excess dealt with? By attachment or by detachment?

By detachment, of course.

But what about excessive detachment?

There is no such a thing.

A man detaches until his mind becomes blank. Noone remains there. I have yet to hear of a man who kept himself stuck in this blank state of mind and who died because of it. In fact, getting stuck in that blank state would be just another kind of over-attachment . . .

What can be a problem and what is the problem is a possibility of random attachment occurring during the process of detachment. A process of detachment is a movement backward and this movement backward introduces new drives pulling the individual in their own directions. The danger is that one of these drives might pull you in its direction and that the consequences might be terrible . . .

Quote :

Could you not take it then a little bit further and observe people online, learn about them from their thoughts posted over a period of time and thus enhance your own thoughts and ideas?

I do not seek "challenge" on forums, or in reality, I seek what I lack, and what I lack in the context of forums is thoughts that will clear up confusions that interacting with all sorts of people has created in my head.

When someone says to me "we need equal opportunities" this confuses me and I have to deal with it for the sake of my psychological health.

I already know what I need, there is no need for anyone tell me what I need.

The word "challenge" is often used by people who are out of touch with their needs and often to hide the fact that they are out of touch with their needs (since it is possible for them to know they are disconnected from their needs without being able to accept it.)

Needs have a definite shape, they are exact, they aren't so general. Noone needs "challenge". Or "fun". All of these are words that simply tell us that those who use them are either incapable of understanding their needs, or that they are incapable of accepting that fact, or that they are incapable of accepting the reality of their needs.

I've been watching Satyr's videos, they're excellent.

In one of them, he points out how in regards to politics it is the females who are usually more tolerant, and permissive, while it is the males who are more exclusive, assertive, and authoritarian.

Since he was speaking about politics, I would tend to agree, but I also think there's an underlying irony to it when we compare it to their roles in

Reproduction:

Females

As much as females are permissive and tolerant of degeneracy and stupidity in politics, when it comes to reproduction the roles are reversed and you'll notice that it's the females who are more discriminatory, which is indeed their function - they act as genetic/memetic filters, so they have to be discriminatory and search for a male who is superior to her and thus worthy of reproduction. Understandable, the number of times she can be pregnant is very limited, and pregnancy itself is a tedious process.

This is why you'll see even the most liberal types of women be disgusted by obesity, horrible smell, disease etc. regardless of how much they attempt to romanticize love and detach it from physicality.

Males are much more tolerant and 'open-minded' in terms of who they are willing to have sex with, since they can't get pregnant and sperm is produced continuously during their lives. They are biologically hardwired to spread their seed wherever they can, only extreme ugliness, obesity, or otherwise unattractiveness can repel a man that hasn't had sex for longer periods of time.

In modern times, pornography also plays a part by raising the standards of below-average men, so they have a choice between their female counterparts, below average women or pornography (average-highly attractive women), and many choose the latter.

This is why it is usually the ugliest of feminists who are such fervent opponents of pornography - because it further reduces their already low sexual value, and renders them completely sexually left out.

Men require women only for their vaginas. This can be compensated with by porn, and the male sexual desires will be, more or less, satisfied.
Women can compensate for lack of penis with porn as alternative means of satisfying their sexual desires too. But they also require men for the resources they are willing to provide for them. This can't be compensated for by porn.

Liberals?

Role-playing upper-class in the midst of the mimetic fallout of slave-morality.

The intentionality is often that we have superimposed through another who may be able to give us a mimicry of the feelings which the real, the onues, et tu, reason causes.
In this way, to use an-other incumbent as a bastian of prelude and expenditure to capture, to bring out, that with which we are preoccupied.

Understanding belongs to ghost, to inscrutable, as it confers bleaknesss, meaninglessness, the river which becomes an impotent delta.
Can choose to either supplant, ah nay, to subvert that gray scale, or to live within it, to become it, at which rate all hope is abandoned.

What we want is secondary to what we have to do - there's no other way, no recourse but our own neediness.

To feel alive, in whatever way. To light fires which extinguish, no way, which engulf through icey penetration, all paltry embers and spasms. But don't stay too long at our fire, as all love will be lost, forgotten, blind, deaf and dumb: closeness becomes distance, a friendly face insead a mask, a strangler with a limpwristed stranglehold.

What do you know of certainty? Do you know how to rip your hand off holding onto the bridge of uncertainty?
Are you sensitive to the fingers which interweave your certitude?
The palm which sweats and clams and dries and regenerates to your progress?
To exhale and touch your soft lips to the hardness of its task?

Can you tangle a branch, and untangle concrete, and drop the weight of an anvil on the tender heart of a formidable body guard?

Pythagoras and Anaxagoras have both said that the purpose of life is to gaze at the sky.

I understand it as a metaphor for 'to become human'. Animals don't observe their environment just for the sake of observing it, they cannot conceive themselves as a part of it, or separate from it. They are integrated in it as much as a rock, or a plant, or an inanimate object, completely taken over by instinct.

Only humans are self-aware - to admire the stars and the sky is exclusive to humans. To engage in such admiration is to nurture self-awareness and the human aspect of our being. The sky symbolizes plentiful possibilities, abstraction, and extraordinary distance - things only humans conceive of and recognize.