Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

The way how Zoot and Camembert understand moral superiority thinks in terms of a moral universal standard. There is one ruler for the moral quality, one measuring tool to rule them all. And that ruler is manmade.

There is one standard out there which is true beyond manmade rulers and that is objective reality.
And that kind of ruler does not concern itself with right or wrong nevertheless it is a present reality which affects people.

That reality is being denied and shunned.

We can't really say anything about other people because Dasein, because political socio-economical environment blabla. What a cheap and convenient cop out.

Argumentation about reality with them is pretty much pointless when it comes to convincing. What it serves is maybe to improve your argumentative skills and it forces you to come up with better conceptions to cover their criticism but you will never, ever, convince them with rational arguments.
And even if you should convince them, the next day they will have had some amnesia and the whole argument would start all over again. I think Hitler talks somewhere about such an incident with a communist.

Arguments about reality are to be reserved for people who are actually interested in exploring and understanding reality. For everybody else there is just magic - that's the only thing which affects them.
You don't argue with them, you simply change their 'reality'.
The thing about magic is that I suspect that it has a 'feminine' bias. It's not suited to rear men, at least not their masculine part. That is done by exposure to reality.

The phenomenon could be described as the prejudice of prejudice: when the person has imposed an inhibition to movement in an ever moving world.
Cases of the kind could be that a conception seen as the conceptions of all conceptions replaced a former view or it was the onset of the first view with which to view one's position in the world. As such, it is the self-referential reference point to any incoming or outgoing points, whereby the point is separated from the pointer, with the former secondary to the latter.
The types tend to be collectors of memorabilia of romanticized events they have never experienced, playing dress up in uniforms with medals unearned, or living in conditions which make it comfortably possible to idealistically neglect the actual systematic conditions of an ideological system.

Anfang, you described it perfectly with  "amnesia" as what is amnesia but a hardening up of memory or thought sequence.
Other infirmities could include early sclerosis, arthritis, and cataracts. Movement and speech would be seen as jolted and disjointed and abrasive and evasive.

Relating to the "go back to the kitchen" gender specific comment: Universities are alike kitchens, they are given the ingredients (second hand knowledge) the recepy (idea[l]s on how it ought to be), the tradition (status quo) and the interpretation how it should taste and be fed to the masses like they have been fed without resistance; parotting the current super-ego, the celebrated dish as most dominant manifestation to be propagated, because Self-propagation is what life is all about - ideals, genes, character, politics, taste, demeanor; all is Self-propagation.

As Satyr described.
The men hunt, create and build; the women nurture the given ingredients - it is just that a cancerous elite are in charge, a faceless elite of the economy, anti-European, an abstract male representation we call the State with their loyal emasculated male followers who want a share of tge resources, are feeding our women the poisonous seeds and nutrients prepared in a wrong order: their minds and hence their wombs are 'raped' without their knowing, what does a bird know about flying and following instinct locked in a cage with crippled wings, it is the bird's freedom, so it thinks.
We need to gain dominance again over OUR wombs, our recepies and ingredients and TASTE - a war is going on against our blood, women, children and men, and any aware man should not blame the woman but rather guide or capture her.

OhFortunae wrote:

As Satyr described.
The men hunt, create and build; the women nurture the given ingredients - it is just that a cancerous elite are in charge, a faceless elite of the economy, anti-European, an abstract male representation we call the State with their loyal emasculated male followers who want a share of tge resources, are feeding our women the poisonous seeds and nutrients prepared in a wrong order: their minds and hence their wombs are 'raped' without their knowing, what does a bird know about flying  and following instinct locked in a cage with crippled wings, it is the bird's freedom, so it thinks.
We need to gain dominance again over OUR wombs, our recepies and ingredients and TASTE - a war is going on against our blood, women, children and men, and any aware man should not blame the woman but rather guide or capture her.

I can't champion this sentiment enough.  It's very astute from someone so young, but it's very accurate and true.  As a woman, I see women around me so often, misguided and feeling lost in a world that thinks they should either act like men or preen like birds, clawing each other to be seen until they are at the top regardless of their own limitations.  They are not nurtured and guided to have children and meant to understand the importance of family and the skill of being woman.  Luckily there are some that are intelligent enough to question everything they are being taught.  They reject the "new theory" and substitute it for one that has logic and follows her instinct. She seeks out a mate who is also intelligent and shuns popular theories, instead thinking on his own and commanding enough respect that she wants to be with him not because he will give her wealth, but because he will be a good mate, a good father, a pillar of strength and a font of knowledge and problem solving.

I am often criticized for suggesting to women that they speak with their mates and seek guidance from them.  I do believe that men possess a logic level that is largely unattainable by women and honing their decisions against his logic, strengthens and bolsters their ideas and gives the notion a much stronger base and conviction. I also often suggest having children earlier in life, when they have a better chance of being healthy and having a parent with enough energy and passion to really engage with them.  I think that a family unit is the pillar of this world.  It is the beginning and the end and it is the most important thing in my life. I work very hard to nurture and feed it so that we are all stronger.  Men fight harder to be great men when the hearth at home is lit and he knows there is a warm bed, a good meal and family to inspire.  We have stripped men of this, with our misguided ideas of "sameness equality" and the feminization of men.  We have done a disservice to both men and women and I will not stop speaking out against it, or advising the young women I often work with to question everything they've been taught and listen to their instincts.

It is a war, and I will not put my torch down until I have burned their paper towns to the ground.

I observe that sexually attractive females become interested in philosophy "all of a sudden" AFTER they have children (boys) of their own. Then, "all of a sudden", these women seek out the philosopher mind, because her own mind, or that of her absent husband, or emasculated-feminine-socialized husband, is inferior and will not measure-up to a proper father figure to her sons.

So women seek philosophy for a "Godfather" to their sons. Women steal, copy and paste, the ideas of philosophers (philosophy is a male-only aspect of life and reality) in an attempt to create a surrogate masculine figure for their sons. A type of bastardization (of philosophy).

This ultimately ends in failure, as a philosopher neither could, nor would "stand in" as a surrogate father to non-biological (bastard) children.


Simply put, it would be a waste of a thinker and philosopher's time, to concern himself with such women and their bastard children.

Arditezza I'm not sure if return of the family unit in mainstream is possible, or even desirable. As much as I can see the benefits of a family unit, there is a reason it is falling apart. This is something AEon touched upon (though from what I hear he probably took it from Satyr haha) when he pointed out that in nature, almost all of the females get to procreate and have offspring - females have high innate value, while males are born worthless and have to prove themselves and the majority of them fail. I'd say in nature something like the Pareto principle applies - 20% of men get 80% of women.

I'll put it in terms of numbers for the sake of simplicity. Let's say a man Y has sexual marketplace value of 7/10 and a woman X has a sexual marketplace value of 5/10. In this case, usually a man would be willing to have sex with that woman and reproduce with her because men are less picky about their partners, and they had to evolve to be less picky and have a higher sexual drive because they are disposable and may be overthrown and murdered by another male any moment. However, a woman that is 7/10 would almost never have sex with a 5/10 male because she has easy access to 7/10 males or even higher.

In other words, an average man doesn't reproduce in nature, only extraordinary men, while an average women does reproduce.

In paternalistic, monogamous systems, an average female (5/10) will usually be paired up with an average male (5/10). While a male may agree with this set up, for a female it is highly unacceptable because she thinks she can do better and have sex with more attractive men, and she IS right. But the catch is that while a high-ranking male may have sex with an average female, he is unlikely to STAY with her - when it comes to a serious relationship he'll seek a high-ranking female. This is why some females decide to settle for the beta-male that is somewhere on her level or even beneath her, and males do it too - it increases the probability that the partner won't cheat on you because they have fewer options and thus the relationship is more likely to succeed in the long-term.

A monogamous system has its advantages and disadvantages, I remember this from a Satyr's video I think. Objectively speaking, the disadvantage of a monogamous system is that beta males are allowed access to reproduction which pollutes the gene pool. Subjectively, to those beta males that is an advantage of course. The advantage of a monogamous system is that it is one of the prerequisites for a civilization - male has a constant outlet for his libidinal energies so 1) He isn't threatening to the system anymore and, furthermore, becomes its member and even protector, and 2) He can focus on intellectual issues - architecture, philosophy, medicine, art etc.

Me, I pretty much don't give a shit. I am sufficiently intelligent and attractive to function and achieve my goals within both systems. The current sexual environment is much alike a natural one in that the few males get most of the pussy while most are left on the periphery of the gene pool angrily masturbating or indulging in escapism by means of video games, comicbooks, etc.

Although the modern liberal sexual environment is also much less natural in some other aspects compared to the monogamous environment.

Satyr probably takes as much as, if not more of, my ideas than I do of his.

The difference between him and I is that I don't care to keep track, like some kind of score-card and competition. It really makes no difference to me, because I'm not seeking to impress strangers nor maintain a social status, as Satyr does on this forum.

Simply put, I am bound by far fewer parameters of conduct than Satyr is. Satyr is beholden to his acolaydes while my mind is free to explore many more quantities and higher qualities of ideas.

Dasein

Another observation and thought, too short for its own thread....

Expanding off what I mentioned earlier, females are aware that some intellects are much vaster and more powerful than others. While a nagging woman can overcome and emasculate her long-term romantic partner, as the state and social institutions side with her on almost every serious pressing issue...she still feels a lack and powerless, among "higher powers". And so this will be another reason that a more intelligent and intellectually powerful female will seek out philosophy. Same problem as before, though, females don't seek philosophy until it is needed by them.

Males, on the other hand, seek out philosophy naturally as a type of inherent natural desire (for power). The difference between men and women, as with gender, is the wielding of power, compared to using power as a proxy, which females tend to do.

This is also the reason why common intellects, and average minds like those on ILP, commonly defer to dead philosophers as a spade card. As a fail-safe, backup plan. It always works, for them. Because it's always easy to defer to the words of a dead man, who cannot defend his ideas from the living. Furthermore, dead philosophers are automatically "unquestionable". The modern will respond predictably, "What?! Do you think you're smarter than the wisest men of all time??!?" But, why not? What's the difference between a living philosopher and a dead one, except that a living philosopher is not so easily manipulated and used?

Except that it's easy to abuse the ideas of dead men? Or reinterpret them however you wish?


Females lack a type of creative power that males and men withhold. I think this is one of the deepest and quintessential differences of gender and sex, as sexual specialization.

I've talked about this numerous times, as how males are the biological extension of how "Nature" takes risks. Thus males are risk-takers while females are risk-averse and avoidant. Thus males, ideologically too, take risk on behalf of all females, naturally, compulsively, instinctively.


A woman cannot help but benefit directly or indirectly from philosophy, whether she wants to or not, whether she cares to or not. Powerful wisdom, insights, knowledge, intelligence is passed down to her, without a choice.


Maybe it's as simple as biology. Regardless, men tend to be the "Heroes" of women, but women are never the heroes of men.

The idea of a "Super-woman" or "Supergirl" is as ridiculous as pretending that "Jesus Christ's" selflessness and sacrificial act could have in anyway been imitated, or originate, as a woman.


Nevertheless, global liberalism will continue to perpetuate and grow the lies, of "human gender equality", etc.

True selfishness is rare in males : as true selflessness is rare in females.

For either gender to go against its nature, instinct, and compulsion is the "path of least resistance" and yet most beneficiary to a man or woman as individuals. It does a man well to "become selfish" as it does a woman well to "become selfless", as impossible as this is. In the end, there are limits. And a man may attempt hoard all the power he can, but ultimately this dissipates upon his death. And so females benefit from "selflessness" too, by further ingraining themselves deeper and deeper within the internal complexes of societies and states.

As guarded prizes to be won through male competition.

Etc.

OhFortunae wrote:

Dasein

Lady B

I don't think alike your absolutist alphabet limited to the first three letters.

Æon wrote:

Satyr probably takes as much as, if not more of, my ideas than I do of his.

Ha!!!

I forget which ones I took from you...can you name them and describe them?

Truth is, I have been following you around and copying your views.
I know it, you know it, and everyone with a brain already knows it, no?
I covet the effect you have, especially with the ladies, and what an impact you've made on ILP.

How do you flirt?
Ah yes...
"You know you want to fuck me. Don't you bitch? You are my whore now, cunt. Just admit it, you are mine. I am in your head, slut, you are mine! "
Yadda yadda yadda...
Did you use that technique with Natalie?

Charming....the ladies must swoooon.

I do enjoy your presence, boy.
It's been how many years now, that you've been following me around begging for me to turn your way?

No Red Dragon...that's JJ...you are forever the Purple Dragon.
You have a hint of blue in your redness. I've told you this already.
Not blush, indicating pure desire/lust but a forming decay - pooling of un-oxygenated blood - the life and death wish in one.
Zombie-like, only you are only now beginning to turn...you are titter-tottering on the edge.

You are not becoming, you are fluttering, like a wyrm, tiny puffs of smoke coming from your nostrils; hunger for what you have been denied in your eyes.
It's cute.
The Red Dragon smells of brimstone, and sulphur.
An internal inferno wanting more flesh to burn, to consume....eroticism made abstract.

The idea of "overflowing" is meaningless outside a living organism.
There is no container in existence to be full and overflowing - there is no boundary, no limit, no end, no whole to be complete, or incomplete; there is no outside observer to determine what is full and what is empty.

The concept of fullness and emptiness only has meaning in relation to a living organism - a living organism with desire.
A living organism establishes a border, a shell/skin, porous and incomplete as it may be, to then attempt to complete itself.
In this sense the organism stands in opposition to world, not in agreement with it.
It resists and reject, flux, and this is the start of the nihilistic attitude that later develops into Judeo-Christianity/Islam, Marxism, Humanism.

It is this resistance, which then becomes resentiment, and is felt as need/suffering, and is interpreted as a disharmony between idea(l), and real (noumenon/phenomenon), and explains the linguistic weakness, producing paradoxes, and the conflict between intuition and the counter-intuitive or ordering within a state of constant increasing chaos.
Overflowing is a by-product of lack; as in a lack of completeness, an absence of an absolute, the organic attempt that is doomed to failure, moving towards an idea(l).
This movement contrary to entropy IS this rejection, the agon.

What is overflowing in the organism is a product of fitness, success, within a threatening world.
The excess left-over when self-maintenance, self-preservation, has been ensured, allowing the excess to be directed, by the will, towards growth, reproduction, creativity, expansion.
Unlike Moderns, and the Semite influences Judeo-Christians, this self-preservation is not for the noble mind the goal, as it is for the simple animals who only directs itself toward satisfying immediate, pressing needs, driven to feel the pleasure and not knowing anything beyond this.
Self-preservation is the means towards the goal, whatever this goal might be.
It is only after the organism, the self-organizing, forever incomplete, organism has sustained itself within the flux that it can accumulate energies - libidinal energies.
It is these excess energies which are then overflowing - pressuring the organism to be expunged, released.
This is the bow being released, after it has been pulled back into a state of stress.

It is never guaranteed that this excess will occur, because this is a result of natural selection - the relationship between the particular organism and its environment.
The Will is the aiming mechanism...and has no meaning outside of this relationship of organism with objective, with a taught bowstring at its disposal.
Accumulating/Appropriating energies occurs automatically. It is part of the organism's program, its genetic code.
The target is the objective, the mechanism and the intervening space/time is what is evaluated - what gives value to the target in relation to the arrow.
The arrow is this accumulated energy, stressing the organism who is holding it back looking for the right trajectory and time to release, collected and ordered into genetic and/or memetic code.
The stress of pulling the constructing the arrow and pulling it back on the string is this excess, this overflowing.  
With no target (re)cognized there is no value or judgment to evaluate.
All else is circumstantial - a product of (inter)activity, following the path-of-least-resistance.  
To intervene upon such coincidental paths, sometimes settling into ephemeral unities, one must bring to bear a force greater than the ease present - to motivate a body at rest you must exert a force greater then the body at relative rest.

Strength is a measure of weakness.
Gnosis a measure of ignorance.  
Order a measure of chaos.
Life a measure of death.

Whether you create an idol and place it outside yourself to worship to inspire and motivate, is no different than placing it inside, like a woman nests her ovum, and idolizing it as part of self.
The mental games humans play to not feel embarrassed by their real motives are infinite - only limited by human imagination.
Changing words around, detaching them and making them mystical pure noetic artifices, are but a small segment of human ingenuity.
All one needs, really, is to convince himself that a lie is honest, and that words usurp deeds...because within human environments, socioeconomic, political ones, this is the case.
All you need then is to also convince many others of your lies to further validate them in your own mind.

The remedy to this dis-ease, this human trickery?
To place the standard for evaluating all words outside the human brain.
What does the word mean if there is no brain and no consciousness?
What does it mean when brain/consciousness is present, in relating to a world lacking both?

Like all minds dominated by feminine reproductive strategies, the modern male or female, is seduced,e easily, by anyone exhibiting a pretense of certainty, confidence, masculine energy exceeding what is present in him/her.
From one 'master' to the next, each promising easy solutions to your internal ailments; flattery and words of praise and of value within the world.

The female spirit, evolved to be attracted by anything offering stability, certainty, and promise for her and her immanent offspring, will be attracted by such positive sentiments.
(S)He, whether male or female, submit to the possibility.

What does it matter how highly you value yourself, what you think of yourself in yourself, for yourself?
This may have an effect in attitude, to the conscious observer, that may not exceed the moment, this may produce an impression, which will quickly dissipate when the world strikes you in the face.

What does it matter if you think you are sexy, worthy of love, of appreciation, of gratitude?
You may convince some, for a short while, before the cold hard world crushed the conviction with a dose of reality.

The only thing that matter is in relation to the goal.
Self, movement, towards, the objective.
The goal is the standard by which all choices are measured, all judgments are judged.
You can think whatever the hell you want, in your head, if the price to pay for a misjudgment is negligible.
You can think you deserve kingdoms and wealth and to be appreciated and who cares?

The goal is the deciding factor.
The goal in relation to your self-knowledge, your self-evaluation in relation to it, and in relation to the obstacles between you and it.
All else is a con-game...a priestly Jew method, used for thousands of years.

What's the difference between someone who is disloyal in mind and one who is so in body?
Proximity, and opportunity.
A whore of the mind is prone to be a whore of the body, if the circumstances arise and the conditions are optimal.
A mental slut, prone to psychological/intellectual infidelity, knows no temporal and geographical boundaries, and because of this a slut, of this sort, is more conspicuous and difficult to discover.
In all cases pleasure is her objective – mental and/or physical.
(S)He has no other principle, and because of this (s)he is here and then there, and her offspring, her creations, are divided and lacking in focus.
Every night another bed, every morning a new mate, and by the evening a new toddler in the house.

Not so difficult to understand why life would arise, when we keep in mind that space is possibility, and time is the measurement of expanding/increasing possibility in relation to a near-absolute order, we call Big Bang, tending towards a near-absolute chaos, we may call Big Crunch, or "end" or whatever other name we wish to give it.

As possibility increases, in other words as space expands, resulting in increasing (inter)actions, the possibility of a self-organizing unity emerging, becomes increasingly probable.
Remember, order is a limitation of possibility/s[pace, with the absolute, the singularity, signifying zero possibility - time/space shrunk to a singular certainty, an absolute probability.
The more distance from the singularity the more probable that a self-organizing unity will emerge, with the other end of near-absolute chaos, or randomness signifying the possibility of self-organizing unities emerging which will last more than the next (inter)action.
Ordering, is really a echo of this past near-absolute singularity - (re)acting against increasing chaos.
It has value in relation to entropy, where the normal condition, requiring no effort, is towards absolute randomness.
Life is, therefore, a rare occurrence.
If all was hiding a secret order life would not be so rare, and for this reason not that valuable.

But how would this result in continuance since it implies a dire outcome, at least for life?

This too is easy to explain.
As time-space expands, making life increasingly possible, so does the emergence of a new near-absolute become increasing probable.
The idea that this is a whole that contradicts the experience of it, where no whole is ever experience, is part of the human condition - limitation of the human mind which needs absolutes to form conceptions, to direct energies.
It is the noumenon, intuition, which contradict the real, and then not really, because all the noumenon, the abstraction is, is a simplification/generalization constructing representations, approximations, and nothing more.
Contradiction emerges, becoming nihilism, when these abstractions, and the words we symbolize them with, are taken literally, and not figuratively, artistically.
Because the organism depends on these simplifications/generalizations it is emotionally attached to them, and cannot let go of them without the risk of insanity and suicide.
This is where the seductive manipulation of the priestly, the seller of noetic lies, enters the scene - the snake-oil salesman; the one who inverts reality, using only words, and by doing so sells his product to the needy, the weak, the desperate, the dull of mind, the cowards.
Plenty of those in every age and in every population - some populations producing more and some less.
The idea that the cosmos is a one, and immutable, contradicted by the experience of it, contradicted by its parts, is what faith is founded upon. This is the source of all linguistic paradoxes, and what we also call magic.

The emergence of a new near-absolute means a new universe, a new "beginning" a new timeline; not necessarily one that produces life, but one which against tends towards randomness, restarting the process.

Lowlife.

A hedonist who wants to enjoy the privilege but retracts from the responsibility that comes with that privilege - whether that privilege be information, a shared vision, a gift or whatever it is.

Friendships are born out of truth, not truths out of friendship.

The Gangsta is the worst idea(l) of man's aspiration for a solidarity.

Social Cycles

Human history is such that each generation makes a repetitious mistake, feeling that the problems and social ills of today are unique or uncommon, when they're not. Instead, a civilization may have problems and trends over the course of 100, 150, or 250 years, or longer. So within a single, short lifetime, you will think the challenges of today's, modern world have never been encountered before. Or such a violent, great war hadn't been fought before. Or put on the rose-colored googles, and imagine the world "better in the past". Or maybe paradise will come in the future, if not the past.

But all it takes is a few, well crafted history books to disillusion you. No, the modern world is not unique. No, these social ills and "nihilism" have occurred before. No, they are cycles which will come to pass, like a pendulum swinging back and forth, from times of plenty to times of scarcity.

But the cycle of time can be any duration, from day to night, one day to the next, or a week apart, how about a month? A year? An unintelligent, lower lifeform is limited in her mind, only perceiving short periods of time. An elephant, a larger mammal, a lion, or maybe a dolphin, perhaps they can abstract time beyond a week, or a month, or a season. But the human animal?

The human animal can abstract time beyond centuries, now, and even millenniums. With mountains of books and tomes beneath us in libraries. History keeps accumulating. And the mountains of information grows, exponentially now, with every passing cycle.

As the human collective, "hive mind" continues to speed up, how many humans will get left behind? Caught in a cycle, deja vu, that you cannot escape from, like a whirlpool sucking a ship underneath the ocean?

Many will get caught in such loops, and remain trapped in a jungle forever, as humanity one day long ago, left behind apes and gorillas behind them.

My husband and I were just talking about this subject the other day.

How you know the intelligent human by the one who reads between the lines of the history books and takes the time to check other sources and form their own opinion about history. That the schools only bother with the unintelligent ones by forcing them to memorize their versions and then test them about it, and they ignore the children who get answers wrong because they have intuited through study and reasoning the truth of that history and either refuse to comply and answer the question or write essays that contradict what is in their history texts and write the truth.

There is no room in our classrooms for independence, so historical time has a very flat plane of existence that they can draw from. There is no depth, and everything is reduced to a timeline, a one dimensional line that has no depth and no relation to other events across the globe. They isolate these children by thinking that teaching them not to think is the answer. Good teachers are very few and far between because we pay little for lazy teachers that hide behind unions to get away with their laziness. At least that's the pandemic sickness that exists in our American system and it's why non-religious home-schooled and free-range children are faring much better in their more realistic view of time and existence. They are less nihilistic and understand greater concepts because they have been allowed to gather the evidence on their own and have parents who will challenge their position and help guide them.

It's not that humanity in general cannot understand time, it's just that they are taught to ignore it and the unintelligent ones will not challenge popular thought. Just like our concept of the universe as well, generally the less intelligent will accept the idea of a God or Gods to explain things that they have no capacity to understand otherwise. It's laziness, and in my opinion... the lazy should be left behind in the jungle. Some of them might survive and be stronger for it, but it will be very few.

"Reading between the lines" is about comparing the second-hand data (knowledge) with your first-hand data (experiences), evaluating the similarities/differences and then comparing those with reality, existence as it is occurring all around you.

The only feminine aspects available to my ordering, to guide others or structure of which (to varying degrees) to attract the feminine aspects of others, are those within myself. Order is limited to within myself, the rest are drawn in to the elaborate beauty or repulsed by the creakity, shambling construction, desperately trying to contain itself.

When it comes to perceiving reality, honesty and courage are one and the same.

All is multiplicity.
There is no singularity.
A singularity would be a contradiction of multiplicity, and another word for Nil.

Existence is dynamic, not static.
To represent or think of world as static thing (absolute), as a completion, a whole, is to contradict every experience of it, and by contradicting the phenomenon with the noumenon, the real with the ideal, you are nullifying.

Both absolute order and absolute chaos are contradictions of the existent.
They are the binary, mathematical, dualistic, poles of the Nihilistic paradigm.
If taken literally the mind becomes tuck, boxed, in contained by them.
If these poles are taken figuratively, as black/white hues combining into the multiplicity of colours, artistically in others words, then these poles are useful tools.

To represent a multiplicity you must use a verb.
A verb implies the dynamic essence of world, but not any verb will do.
A verb that applies to both animate and inanimate patterns; a verb that refers to both living and non-living contingencies.
A verb referring to a specific manifestation of congruent patterns such as life may be imply dynamism, but it also implies that all patterns also come in congruence to create life, which is not the case.
To use a verb describing a congruence of patterns with a self-organization, and a will, to describe the world is to work backwards, beginning with the desired and justifying all in relation to it.
To use a verb which is nonsensical outside living brains and then project this as a universal truth, is what Judeo-Christian/Islamic nihilists do.

I use (inter)activity to describe both living and non-living pattern congruence.
The word interactive requires no will, no consciousness, but it is the basis out of which life and consciousness can emerge.
I consider it the best word to represent both multiplicity and dynamism without having to resort to projections that make me feel good.
Anyone who uses words that are meaningless outside living organism like consciousness, value, judgment, ego, self, love, pleasure, morality is a bloody moron...plain and simple.
A coward, an idiot, a retard, who uses fancy words to hide how degenerate and simple he or she is.

Who's the admin at this circus? Tell em to delete my account.

You are mine bitch.

Even when you suck on your boyfriend's dick, in private, I'll be watching you.



Bitch, have to finished "thumping" me?
Ha!!!

Zoot Allures wrote:

Who's the admin at this circus? Tell em to delete my account.

If I'm correct, only your name gets deleted, your posts would remain... So if you wanted to be completely erased, you'd have individually delete all your posts first.

Can he delete himself in our memories?
He has a special place there.


She sort of looks like Lyssa.