Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

Nihilism is believing that meaning and purpose is to be found in an ideal and realizing that there is nothing within any of them. And so nihilism is the underlying believe that meaning and purpose can be qualities of an ideal on its own.

It's the realization that ideas disconnected from the real are nothing of substance and instead of trying to re-connect the mind with the body the path taken is oblivion - Oblivion within the mind.

Did you know that Spartans had endurance feats where boys and men would compete to see who could endure a scourging the longest and without yelping? Yelping was seen as a sign of cowardice. Tourists would come from miles away just to witness these feats of Spartan grit. They also would have foot races extending ten times while maintaining a mouthful of water. The one who made it to the finish line first with the full amount of water in his mouth would be the victor.

#Fun history facts.

I'm having fun over at ILP pissing off the liberal/egalitarian members.   

stargazer wrote:

Sure.
Another factor...
The idea of individuality in terms of living autonomously. Modernists love to boast about their "independence" especially the females. They vehemently profess to their ability to be "independent" and live "independently". If i had a dollar for every time i heard some douchbag claim their superiority by being independent...

They equate independence with some ambiguous idea of freedom, when in fact their independence is entirely ingrained within institutional education. The very idea of "independence" in their heads is a social convention itself. To them being independent is about paying their own bills, and having an apartment, and having the money to party and buy shit on their own. The dollar determines the shallowness of their "independence". The system determines it.

What is "independence" to them? Money, possessions, material ownership. The ability to buy their own car and drive it around by themselves.
Independence of their minds, of their ideas, of their beliefs....that is the irony these idiots cannot introspect.

The American dream... What is independence to you then? You could say that it's being able to have your own thoughts like AEon suggested, but as Satyr has posted previously, there are no unique thoughts but skilled combination/interpretation of all the thoughts and experiences an individual has previously had or heard.
For me the idea of independence is an illusion, it just depends who or what you are dependent on and your relationship with that/them. Even if you're a lone woodsman you're still dependent on overall forest ecology to keep you alive. The nearest thing to independence in my opinion is the Nietzschean conception of freedom- the ability to command others and impose your will on them. In this sense you can take from others whilst having no obligations to them. But this blunts your skills of being able to look after yourself if those you command happen to disappear...

I've noticed that most White women who date black men are trashy, low class. These women may be physically attractive sometimes, but personality wise, they are trash. I'm not sayings this is the case always, but about 98% of the time, it is.

I never, really, understood why, the hell, some white females date these back guys; the majority of them are sleazy, low life, inarticulate, ignorant, ugly ( apish features ), and malodorous. The whole " big cock"  thing isn't why; European males don't lack in that regard. The only, plausible, reason that comes to mind is that they date them because they want to fit in, because they think it's cool to date black guys. They want to be part of the hip-hop culture.

I've stated this before, but if you go to countries where Hip-Hop isn't as popular, you will notice that negro males are shunned, the females find them disgusting. This is the case in places like Mexico and the Philippines. White men are, seriously, desired there.

A sycophant is always disloyal, they suck up to someone as long as they perceive that person to be powerful. Their experience of their own self-worth is tied to the worth of who they choose as their host.  

They easily change their allegiances and have no problem with denouncing their last captain when they jump ship.
Then again, they have no sense of dignity and crawl back to their former captain, expecting him to take them back aboard when the circumstances have become less favorable for them - After all, this exposes how they experience something like honor or dignity - empty words, meaningless to them - Not because they are meaningless but because the sycophant has nothing inside him/her-self which those words could meaningfully relate to (at least not developed in a sufficient capacity).

An amusing idiosyncrasy observed when conversing with people in groups: their body language which indicates how they are feeling, or their nature in general. Perhaps I'm not the only one who picks up on these subtleties. But for me, it's almost like a stepping back, a meta-perspective of psycho-sociality.

Whilst standing on top of the mountain, onlooking: it holds us in the experience, as we submit to its beauty and mystery... One of those phenomenons in nature which create a bias toward life.

Forums where people try to explain human nature and humanity, are mostly inhabited by people who doesn't know or have forgotten how to be a human in the first place.

They are confusing a system/organization/group/idea/ideology and mistakenly impersonate it, thus attributing it's errors to a human being.

There are just a bunch of "bullshit camps" trying to act as separate organisms (merging into higher self) that are constantly fighting and trying to devour each other, while bound together by the fear of death. The feeling of belonging and delusion of avoiding death (living on in a collective consciousness, or maybe, even becoming a dominant ego) sure is nice, but it's still a bullshit. It's more or less - giving up, rejecting your own self and submitting to someone else while pretending his bullshit is real.
It's all just an illusion. A trick. A sweet lie.
One of the most advanced and ancient arts - the one of manipulating a human mind. Otherwise, how do you think all those huge empires in our history came to being? Don't buy into others shit, watch out from cults, preachers and everyone else who tries to make you commit.

There might be some thing mentioned before here, for that, I express my sincere (not really) apology.

The "feeling" of being an outsider is a sort of probation period. The very need to belong to something is a sign of emotional involvement with a faction. What follows next is an internal struggle - submission versus resistance. Once it had more direct approach involving mainly physical techniques, nowadays it's mostly passive-aggressive due to how modern society works. Though resistance is always present, it mostly ends with submission - death of the old persona and birth of a new one tailored in a manner that resembles the higher-self of that group (reference for the Christian folks: "So God created man in his own image.").
And thus a new cult follower is being born. The keyword being - a follower.
About resistance, it's rather hard. You either belong to a group (even without knowing it yourself) or you are in a process of being recruited by (even without knowing it yourself). There's an option to create a new one, but in the end it's just a sub-group of another group (interest circle - as a plain example) revolving around whatever (a group needs a common ground to exist, after all).
A while ago there was an option to pack and move to another plot of land, but then overpopulation happened and now there's Siberia and Antarctica left (probably something else, but that's besides the point) with really good living conditions.
Internet served as a great place to escape before, but that changed as more and more people figured out how to use computer. So even a small internet community revolving around something trivial that only 10 or so people around the globe are interested in - has a high chance of being discovered and invaded without special countermeasures, since there are a billion of potential attackers from any place on the planet. That yet again, limits the space were one could possibly move undisturbed and free from the bullshit around him.

There's a common delusion, that by reaching the top via sacrifice or by being a sneaky (well, there's a plethora of means) one can attain freedom. Well, it's privilege that one attains by climbing higher not freedom. In the end, no matter how high you climb you are still part of the same bullshit group and must conform to their bullshit ways. Not to mention, you always have to be on your guard, that there won't be someone else ready to snatch away your place.

Freedom: just another carrot many are set to chasing, never to catch.

Freedom from what? From who?

Self-possession, now that's a thing a body can make use of.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Freedom from what? From who?

From influence of a Group/Gang/State/Cult/System.
The context can be found if the all three posts are red in succession.
11:11 AM, 1:38 PM & 2:07 PM (September 21st).

Even if one is the best monkey in the whole rain forest, it is still a monkey in the same damn forest every other monkey lives in, making the same monkey noises, while scratching the same monkey ass with a little bit more dexterity than other monkeys.

I say the monkey who owns himself, who recognizes he owns himself, gets to pick his tree, pick his noise, and decides when to scratch his ass.

I say the self-possessed monkey decides where he goes and what he does.

Sure: it's all monkey stuff but it's 'his' monkey stuff, not the monkey tribe's stuff.

Problem with all this 'Group/Gang/State/Cult/System' crap is it's always been here and always will be here.

There's no escaping it; there's only navigating it.

Poop on 'freedom'.

Henry Quirk wrote:

I say the monkey who owns himself, who recognizes he owns himself, gets to pick his tree, pick his noise, and decides when to scratch his ass.

I say the self-possessed monkey decides where he goes and what he does.

How does expressing appreciation for having personal "freedoms" rhymes with:

Henry Quirk wrote:

Poop on 'freedom'.

It's rather plain in sight contradiction.

So excuse me, but I'm putting my money on you having problem with something else, like... feeling of helplessness since you know that you are bound to a cult/system, but... can't do anything about it?

Henry Quirk wrote:

Problem with all this 'Group/Gang/State/Cult/System' crap is it's always been here and always will be here.

There's no escaping it; there's only navigating it.

Freedom, liberty, whatever you wanna call it, is not synonymous with self-possession.

What you see as 'personal freedoms' I see as simply doin' (or, attempting to do) what a body wills.

#

"feeling of helplessness"

A little constipated, yes.

Helpless, no.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Self-possession.

The point is, monkey does things on "its own terms" until it doesn't clash with tribes interests. Its own tree and time it chooses to scratch its ass is nothing more than a privilege.
As soon as it clashes with tribes interests or it pisses of big enough amount of other monkeys, shit is going to hit the fan. So as much as it likes to pretend that it lives on its own terms, it still abides by the tribes will, since it is - just another monkey in the same damn forest. So his "Self-possession" is nothing but a delusion.

Gluttony wrote:

There's a common delusion, that by reaching the top via sacrifice or by being a sneaky (well, there's a plethora of means) one can attain freedom. Well, it's privilege that one attains by climbing higher not freedom. In the end, no matter how high you climb you are still part of the same bullshit group and must conform to their bullshit ways. Not to mention, you always have to be on your guard, that there won't be someone else ready to snatch away your place.

Different wording - still the same point.

You keep referin' to a 'closed' system or society where there is none.

The 'cage' you keep seein' is, perhaps, inside your own head.

*shrug*

As for 'self-possession': if you can't distinguish the reality of it from the fiction of freedom, then I got no clue what to tell you.

I leave you to your self-imposed constraints.

Freedom = independence.

Any decrease in Independence is a decrease in freedom.
the integration of a cell, into the organic body, for example, constitutes a decrease of independence, and an increase of dependence.
Specialization, or specialized functions, is a sign of dependence.
A skin cell specializes in being a skin cell, depending on other cells to specialized in other roles so as to increase efficiency.

The sexes are a form of co-dependence that makes specialized roles possible.
From mitosis, which is a more independent type of replication, to cellular combinations which is the foundation of heterosexual replication.

Loss of dependence is compensated by an increase in survivability, in relation to fluctuating environments.

Social behavior is another form of dependence, made necessary by an individual organism's vulnerability.
A loss in independence is, again, compensated by an increase in survivability.

Was walkin' out the door and thought of a possible way, Glut, to get you to see things my way (probably won't work but, what the hey, it's my time to waste).


The following are necessary and irrevocable.

I'm bound up by, limited by, the way Reality works (the nature of matter).

I'm bound up by, limited by, the particular nature of the matter that comprises me (the various limits and frailties of my flesh; the encyclopedia of information bound up in my flesh).


The following I'll call 'negotiables' or 'navigatables'.

I'm potentially limited by the actions, and the consequences of the actions, of other folks (as individuals and as collectives), but I'm never necessarily limited by the actions, and the consequences of the actions, of other folks.

I'm potentially limited by the misdirection of my own attention and intention (usually, the misdirection is foisted up by other folks lookin' to satisfy their own agendas on my back), but I'm never necessarily limited by the misdirection of my attention and intention.


It seems you, Glut, take as a given that 'tribalism' (the collective or individuals in service to a collective culture) trumps all.

My own experiences tell me different.

The world is bigger (literally and figuratively) than you know.

##

"Loss of dependence is compensated by an increase in survivability, in relation to fluctuating environments."

Exactly. The more successfully one can navigate in, adapt consciously to, the world, the less one is necessarily dependent on any particular aspect of it.

It's not about rejecting the world (or submitting to the world), but using it.

Henry Quirk wrote:

You keep referin' to a 'closed' system or society where there is none.

Specimen can't...

Henry Quirk wrote:

can't distinguish the reality of it from the fiction

Henry Quirk wrote:

The 'cage' you keep seein' is, perhaps, inside your own head.

Here's the cage inside the specimens head, that it is projecting onto other:

Henry Quirk wrote:

Problem with all this 'Group/Gang/State/Cult/System' crap is it's always been here and always will be here.

There's no escaping it; there's only navigating it.

Henry Quirk wrote:

As for 'self-possession': if you can't distinguish the reality of it from the fiction of freedom, then I got no clue what to tell you.

I leave you to your self-imposed constraints.

Another projection.

Well, I tried...a piss poor effort on my part, but an effort nonetheless...*shrug*

Henry Quirk wrote:

Well, I tried...a piss poor effort on my part, but an effort nonetheless...*shrug*

Gluttony did try. But alas...

At least there's this material on a specimen, as some sort of reward.
Firstly, there's almost no relation to the original question at this point, that was:

Henry Quirk wrote:

Freedom from what? From who?

Answer given to it:

Gluttony wrote:

From influence of a Group/Gang/State/Cult/System.
The context can be found if the all three posts are red in succession.
11:11 AM, 1:38 PM & 2:07 PM (September 21st).

In its first post, specimen already made an absolute statement:

Henry Quirk wrote:

Freedom: just another carrot many are set to chasing, never to catch.

Still lacking enough context to be certain, it hints of a lack of freedom that specimen feels in his life.

Later it is reinforcing with:

Henry Quirk wrote:

Problem with all this 'Group/Gang/State/Cult/System' crap is it's always been here and always will be here.

There's no escaping it; there's only navigating it.

Then later admitting it:

Henry Quirk wrote:

"feeling of helplessness"

A little constipated, yes.

Helpless, no.

There are other things worth taking a notice, like:

Henry Quirk wrote:

What you see as 'personal freedoms' I see as simply doin' (or, attempting to do) what a body wills.

It starts describing himself, the way it sees himself inside its head, the perceived imaginary self, created while rejecting reality what it admits while projecting:

Henry Quirk wrote:

As for 'self-possession': if you can't distinguish the reality of it from the fiction of freedom, then I got no clue what to tell you.

Henry Quirk wrote:

The 'cage' you keep seein' is, perhaps, inside your own head.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Problem with all this 'Group/Gang/State/Cult/System' crap is it's always been here and always will be here.

There's no escaping it; there's only navigating it.

There's more description of specimens perceived imaginary-self, but the taste inside Gluttony's mouth is bad enough already, to chew through more.

Gluttony wrote:

Even if one is the best monkey in the whole rain forest, it is still a monkey in the same damn forest every other monkey lives in, making the same monkey noises, while scratching the same monkey ass with a little bit more dexterity than other monkeys.

Overcoming does not mean absolute severance, but mastery over it.

J.-Xt. is what denaturalized man by severing his historical evolution and relation with the animal as the abs. other.
Freedom in the Nietzschean sense is an evaluation of a freedom-for, than a freedom-from - which is the slave's perspective.

Quote :

"A final fundamental distinction: the desire for freedom, the instinct for happiness, and subtleties in the feeling of freedom necessarily belong to slave morals and morality, just as an artistry and enthusiasm in respect and devotion are invariant symptoms of an aristocratic mode of thinking and valuing." [Nietzsche, BGE, 260]

Quote :

"My conception of freedom. — The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it — what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.

These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.

How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by “tyrants” are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; most beautiful type: Julius Caesar. This is true politically too; one need only go through history. The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong.

Those large hothouses for the strong — for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known — the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has or does not have, something one wants, something one conquers." [N., TOI, 38]

"specimen"

Assess me as you like...pretty sure I won't be losin' any sleep over it.

#

"the taste inside Gluttony's mouth is bad enough "

I suggest: mouthwash.

##

"Overcoming does not mean absolute severance, but mastery over it."

Yep.

Henry Quirk wrote:

"specimen"

Assess me as you like...pretty sure I won't be losin' any sleep over it.

Yes you will. Again.

Isn't Glutto the one who knows Bob, the speaker of his state's house on a first name basis?
Anyway, he probably just had too much appetite for his own good.

In nature things are cyclical, never the same but similar.
This destruction cannot be evaded.
All individuals choose whether to resist or to embrace this destruction.
Usually, not everything perishes in the same moment.
When enough has been destroyed, those elements which still carry life inside themselves may thrive again.

"Isn't Glutto the one who knows Bob..."

Don't know his bio...do know he was/is a wanna be

"Isn't Glutto the one who knows Bob..."

Don't know his bio...do know he was/is a wanna be