Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

There is the typical belief that says unless you travel and are "out in the world", you dont really know life. While there may be a little truth to that,,, its also true, that what really counts is the calibration of your sensual strength. I have met travellers who lived at the "edge" and all, and still downright stupid. I take this is what those poetic lines mean, "to see the world even in a grain of sand"… sitting at one place like the Buddha or some sages, never having to move an inch can also confer on you the advantage of a patient, detached, slow-coming-to a perspective that distance and isolation can provide. I find great value in Lucid Dreaming.
What matters is not needing to go out to live in the wild and the world per se,,, awareness can cut you in the flesh with truths, as long as honesty and courage and the empirical apparatus is present. Through a dew drop and simply watching plants, Goethe could be inspired to think of many scientific theories on nature and colour and rhythms.
Through a dew drop, one can observe life metaphorically and arrive at conclusions as sharp, if not more, than the traveller who goes out there.
What is important here, is to not stop anywhere. Knowing is an infinite regress, and fixation and getting entangled solipsistically in books or leaves is the same thing.
What I believe is simple; cleanliness is godliness - at every level, from physical to mental hygiene.

As regards Nietzsche, it is too reductive of rationalists to say "he invented nothing new". But N. himself has said this, that genius is nothing more than organizational creativity of hard work of selection, rejection, ejection, assimilation, etc.
One may have at one's disposal many ingredients like flour and salt and sugar… and it takes a Personal genius to invent the best out of it, when anything could be done with such resources.
What counts is what you did with it. What you did with periods of all this knowledge lying about, when one didnt even count them as knowledge. And until N. put it together in the manner that he did, which is his genius, which is his own and to his credit, the world was def. lacking this particular permutation… he did make a world emerge, and it would be wrong to take this away from him.
Its only from hindsight through the crooked line and pathway he cut stretching backwards and forwards, could one see and survey the path of A continuity. The way the cake was cut and divided can only be appreciated Now that we know and can see the path he took through some underlying criterion. The path was made by traversing it wth one's instincts and vision and guts.

Second point. Some people's idea of independence and autonomy is abt. the distance of dependency they can establish Away from something. This is a fair path.

But there is also the fair path, where independence is established by affirming, consuming, digesting your way down and through and out of something. The King who has many subjects has many arms, eyes, brains, resources who are extensions and re-sources of him. The King is not a slave to his own instruments. Likewise, there are Nietzscheans who chew on him and ruminate on him and will not rest till they get to the bottom of the world he opened up… these are resources that work to the advancement of one's being. Digesting periods of history and perspectives through people who are not dead, but "live wires" putting you in touch with real time in real time.

The Emperor wears clothes, accumulating sheaths and sheaths upon him, growing in body and "sap" and vigour… and expanding his "reach"… this too is independence from one's temporal time.

One may merely appear stuck like a glutton while ruminating, whereas there are others who Are stuck like a glutton and cant get out of this "worm-hole" of some other time. I wouldn't confuse the two.

Nobody said that to travel makes you insightful, but if you have that internal ability to find patterns, to experience life above the average, direct experience accentuates it, and makes it more than theoretical.
When individual fantasize, imagine, they tend to flatter themselves. Only a very few can experience reality vicariously.
To pretend this is not so is to lend credence to imbeciles who having read Nietzsche think they are the epitome of his ideals; that, knowing what he said, why he said it, and in what context he said it, makes them the ideal described.
The world is now full of little men-children running around with their heads full of text, and nothing more than that.
The application of the text, is its testing in you, of its impact. In theory we can all be Christians, but when ti comes to a real life application how many can pass the test?

I've met more profound, natural, Christians with no knowledge of a single biblical phrase, and I've met self-describing Christians who could recite Biblical text form memory that were monstrosities.

Traveling, as I've described elsewhere, makes the traveler feel sophisticated, worldly, and he comes back with mementos because he wants to prove, to others, that he is that, when all he did was go to some tourist destination, spend a week or two in it, enjoying the amenities and sampling the local culture, only to return to his life, having experienced nothing more than the act the locals put on to get to their money. Then there are those, who never leave the compound and simply by talking to the maids and waiters get a feel for the culture beyond the walls.

The deciding factor is empathy. All have it but not in equal measure, and not equally void of emotional, corruption.

If you require distance, like Jesus went into the desert to find clarity, then how incorruptible are you?
If you must place yourself outside the seductive elements, then how pure is your nobility?
Abstinence is not control.

Satyr wrote:

If you require distance, like Jesus went into the desert to find clarity, then how incorruptible are you?
If you must place yourself outside the seductive elements, then how pure is your nobility?
Abstinence is not control.  
 

Who said the desert Only exists outside yourself?

Its also beside you and inside you at every moment.

Was Odysseus a coward because he closed his ears and resisted the temptation of the sirens?
Does one have to go out there to the sea to face the sirens?
How about those who even create their own sirens, and test and bite into their own selves?

There is no one form-ula.
"Yes, No, straight line, and a goal."

Who said desert is outside?

But, denying yourself the presence of food, to lose weight, for example, is no great feat of will.
It is what Buddhists do, and christian ascetics.

Hellenic balance demands far greater force of will.
To enjoy and then say...."enough"!!!

Being your own person in modernity has aborted at the stage of Stirnerite atomic egoism.

Being your own person means incorporation of 'the chain of individuals' of the whole organic past.

In-divid-uality means summation of unbroken lights.

Satyr wrote:

But, denying yourself the presence of food, to lose weight, for example, is no great feat of will.
It is what Buddhists do, and christian ascetics.

Popular Buddhists.

Buddha was against extreme asceticism and extreme hedonism.
Middle-path is not mediocrity, but a tense state of mind-full-ness.

It was something known beyond the mediterranean as well.

This takes insight, as in Know Thyself, honest, brutal, knowledge, as in access to data, and, most importantly, self-control, to become discriminating in relation to a chosen idea(l).

A difficult task, even for me - especially the last.

Nature divides beings into two.

Those fearful and careful of their senses, who logically therefore equate independence as distance Away from something.

And, those trusting and fearlessly engaged with their senses, who therefore equate independence as the incorporation of maximum no. of affects and entities Into oneself.

In either case, digestive capacity is the rule.

If distance is escapism, there is also the Nietzschean view that constant touching of a painting slowly erases the original, and somethings should not be touched, and touched often.

Everything is open to corruptibility and degradation by imbeciles who vulgarize and bastardize things.

This shouldn't retard the exceptions from growing, expanding, and venturing forth fearsomely.

Fear of retards should not retard and arrest and stunt the development of exceptions.

You forgot those who overestimate themselves, and engage with what they think they can resist, and then justify their capitulation as a product of their deeper insights.

I was always one for touching. In the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I could not help but run my fingers across the stone carvings, receiving the unwanted attention of the attendants.

When I touch, I experience, I know this is, or this is not for me.  
In theory, as noetic abstraction, all is plausible.  
We imagine things as if they were fact, directed by out intentions.
Abstinence is easier than balance.
The difference between Christian/Buddhist asceticism and Hellenic asceticism.

Lyssa wrote:

There is the typical belief that says unless you travel and are "out in the world", you dont really know life. While there may be a little truth to that,,, its also true, that what really counts is the calibration of your sensual strength. I have met travellers who lived at the "edge" and all, and still downright stupid. I take this is what those poetic lines mean, "to see the world even in a grain of sand"…  sitting at one place like the Buddha or some sages, never having to move an inch can also confer on you the advantage of a patient, detached, slow-coming-to a perspective that distance and isolation can provide. I find great value in Lucid Dreaming.
What matters is not needing to go out to live in the wild and the world per se,,, awareness can cut you in the flesh with truths, as long as honesty and courage and the empirical apparatus is present. Through a dew drop and simply watching plants, Goethe could be inspired to think of many scientific theories on nature and colour and rhythms.
Through a dew drop, one can observe life metaphorically and arrive at conclusions as sharp, if not more, than the traveller who goes out there.
What is important here, is to not stop anywhere. Knowing is an infinite regress, and fixation and getting entangled solipsistically in books or leaves is the same thing.
What I believe is simple; cleanliness is godliness - at every level, from physical to mental hygiene.

Beautifully said.

Reminds me of this woman who has been working with animals for years and yet she doesn't understand why dogs don't respect her. She is very passive and non-assertive, so she doesn't establish herself as the master and the dogs sense her weakness and growl, hump her, and just generally behave in aggressive and disrespectful manner. I told her that she should discipline the dogs even with light physical punishment if necessary, and she looked at me as if I advised her to abuse animals.

An idiot can spend their entire life in presence of an animal and remain ignorant of its nature.
A genius may only observe an animal for a day and gain deeper insights into its nature than an idiot would in a century.

Notice who uses the 'you just haven't experienced enough of the world yet' argument, and when.
Usually a not very bright older person when they're losing an argument and grasping at straws, in this case implying that I will eventually come to their way of thinking when I have acquired as much wisdom as they have, essentially making it a type of an ad hominem fallacy.

A very characteristic type of thinking for moderns as it stresses the quantity of experience, rather than the quality of the senses and the intellect experiencing.

Experience can be a comparison of self with other, but when it is honest all that it is is a test of self in world.

We can emphatically experience the burn of a candle flame, by watching another, perhaps at a more profound level than he does, but when you place your hand over the flame you are testing yourself, not the other.

There are, of course, experiences we would not wish to experience, personally, because the potential rewards does not outweigh the potential loss.
Then, empathy, and second-hand experiences, suffice to provide enough insight to reach a probable conclusion.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Reminds me of this woman who has been working with animals for years and yet she doesn't understand why dogs don't respect her. She is very passive and non-assertive, so she doesn't establish herself as the master and the dogs sense her weakness and growl, hump her, and just generally behave in aggressive and disrespectful manner. I told her that she should discipline the dogs even with light physical punishment if necessary, and she looked at me as if I advised her to abuse animals.

Ironically, not disciplining the dog because you don't want to be mean, is actually an indirect way of punishing the dog who wants a sense of order/purpose. The dog will then not only behave aggressively toward its owner, but to strangers as well...and this all "cute" to the owner who lives in denial (to her the dog will always be innocent). Women will then take this same attitude when they have children. They have dogs which are domestic by nature, which they can't even keep domesticated... Then they have children who they try to domesticate against their nature... As if a baby by being cute is naturally in a state of pure domestic innocence or something that they can't let go of.

To be clear, I am not referring to any kind of empathy or vicarious living or living through proxies at all. I am not referring to abstract observing in order to bypass the cost [plus or minus] of first-hand experience. I have even clearly said the opposite, that one can go nowhere and still cut oneself with truths and pay the price of this awareness.

How is this possible? When one does not see a split and understands the life that is outside is also the very self. I am the same life that continues on beyond me and my borders. Therefore, whether I look out of myself, or look within myself, macro or micro-cosmos, it is life and reality that one is engaged with.

Consider this passage:

Nietzsche wrote:

"The majority, to be sure, believe they will acquire higher natures when those beautiful, peaceful objects have operated upon them: hence the rush to go to Italy and on travels, etc.; all reading and visits to theatres. They want to have themselves formed- that is the meaning of their cultural activity! But the strong, the mighty want to form and no longer to have anything foreign about them!
Thus men also plunge into wild nature, not to find themselves but to lose and forget themselves in it. "To be outside oneself' as the desire of all the weak and the self-discontented." [WTP, 941]

Travelling - whether in the forests outside or the secret gardens inside and even getting your hand burnt or stung by hot tears respectively, mean nothing when your inner motive is self-negation and to escape from yourself…

Also, some need to travel to sharpen their senses, while some come inherited from ancestral accumulation of already possessing strong senses.
A person sitting at home mindfully aware of himself as life at large, is not inferior simply because he has not been "out there". Heraclitus, as in my sig., says, "I searched myself."

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Reminds me of this woman who has been working with animals for years and yet she doesn't understand why dogs don't respect her. She is very passive and non-assertive, so she doesn't establish herself as the master and the dogs sense her weakness and growl, hump her, and just generally behave in aggressive and disrespectful manner. I told her that she should discipline the dogs even with light physical punishment if necessary, and she looked at me as if I advised her to abuse animals.

An idiot can spend their entire life in presence of an animal and remain ignorant of its nature.
A genius may only observe an animal for a day and gain deeper insights into its nature than an idiot would in a century.

Notice who uses the 'you just haven't experienced enough of the world yet' argument, and when.
Usually a not very bright older person when they're losing an argument and grasping at straws, in this case implying that I will eventually come to their way of thinking when I have acquired as much wisdom as they have, essentially making it a type of an ad hominem fallacy.

A very characteristic type of thinking for moderns as it stresses the quantity of experience, rather than the quality of the senses and the intellect experiencing.

Thanks Arbi.

This is what Zen deals with.
A monk pointing to the moon with his finger has a disciple stuck on looking at the pointing finger than the moon is a famous example of things staring at your face and you become literally blind to them - because one is either so engaged and stuck up,, or one stands so far, it goes out of his focus.

Seeing everything for what it is, is awakening to the Buddha nature.

Arrogance and avoidance alike are tools of homeostasis for the mind.

Arrogance (hardening of the mind) when intimidating and avoidance (capitulation of the mind) when intimidated.

If intimidated enough, one may capitulate all of their mind.

A purely masculine/male organism eventually will get pushed out through a crack of society, thence becoming an unpredictable, dangerous "free radical" that poses as a direct threat against the femininity and nature that spawned him. It is through this physical (gender) dynamic that sexual reproduction first evolved and now manifests, and will continue to evolve and manifest. Is is through distinction, diversity, and difference that male and female stand apart, separated by the willpower of man that seeks his own authority, his own power in life, his own "Freedom". Furthermore, in this way, according to the nature of men, Liberty is a natural, instinctive, and reflexive value of masculinity. Because the very possibility of power, to seek and absorb power of any kind, must represent degrees of freedom.

Freedom is a function of power. As a male organism grows, develops, and matures, it becomes powerful in its own rite (Right), and in its own way, on its own "path" out of society. This "difference" of gender encompasses so much of life that people overlook and underestimate it, always.


A boy, a son, a male heir is born. Immediately a threat to to the female, and group that spawns him. Because it is within the masculine instinct to rise up, to rule, to impose order, and first harmonizing his own internal order. The male genes seek Order (Truth or even interpreted as "gods" to the more simple minded commoner). What is this order, this god, this freedom, except power?

The power to change things, others, or yourself. The power of choice, to "choose" against nature, against destiny and determinism. The power of a man to go "off course", to turn the ship of fate sideways or backward. To divert the expected course. To fight against gravity. To resist.

To "Resist" fate/destiny/determinism is the essence of the male/masculine nature.

Embeded in the code of genetics, is a biological function, a specialization (of mankind). Mankind is a creature specifically bred with a "Purpose". Most will interpret this spiritually, as some kind of "meaning of life" or "gift from god". But despite all mystification and "covering", the will of mankind is easily re-dis-covered. Mankind is predictable in his urge and compulsion to become unpredictable. Man desires a type of "Chaos" in these sense of wanting to escape (the gravity, the truth of) pre-determinism. Man wants to defy his fate in life, in such a way as to pit "gods against men". This biological fact was, probably, the first inspiration of mythologies which demonstrated such. Men against gods. Men defying fate (pre-established order).

In this way, the very creature (Creation) of Man is symbolic. Man is the highest creation (of a god) because this is the relationship between Father and Son. The Father creates a heir, his son, and his son eventually will "out-do" him. As males, both are engaged in perpetual war, perpetual rebellion (against fate, against destiny). And so a father will create a son as to rebel with greater strength and success, whereas he always failed. Because to be man, to be an organism, to be anything at all, to exist, is to become limited.

Physics is the law of limitations. Because space exists, there most be barriers, of the human body, of any other body. Because time exists, there must be limits of its flow, stoppage and reversal. A man tries to block a river, but cannot. A man tries to damn a river, to no avail. Water moves around mankind and his wish to "stop" nature.

Mankind is pitted against nature, and against water, in this way. Water best represents the flow of time, the element of time.

Turks even identify with paleo-mongoloid ''amerindians'' because they like horses; you know, that animal species we Europeans introduced to them for which they at first were afraid and were easily defeated in battles by just showing the noble horse. Now is dem new-age propaganda portraying paleo-mongoloids with horses as if it is their totem animal, an ancestral spirit, a animal tamed by them to re-unite what was seperated, which is historically false.

When the program is suicide on an individual and racial level then modern man is heroic, willing to destroy himself for those ideals. And what else is there but heroism for someone who is disgusted with him/her-self.

Liberalism and secular human egalitarianism, "humanity", deeply misunderstand Evolution and Natural-Sexual Selection (of females).

It is less about what types of species "CAN" mate with one-another. It is mostly about which species and individuals "WILL" mate with each-other. And this is the key, to understanding Charles Darwin. It's obvious that Darwin implied this within his theory, which was later taken by Nietzsche and Hitler, to promote Aryan racism and superior breeding.

Today, superior humans still want to break-away from the lower element of humanity, the "Untermenschen", the under-men, the peasantry. For centuries this has been true, never really changed, as royalty does not mix with commoners and low base dwellers.


Again, evolution is the standard of purposeful breeding, about who "WILL" breed together, before ever considering who "CAN" breed together.


A desperate perverted male will fuck anything, if you allow it (Bestiality).
As will a female.

Thus nature is not a matter of "CAN", but of "WILL". Sex and Evolution revolve around intelligence combined with desire.

The nose never lies.
No, I'm not just talking about the J-schnoz but physiognomy overall never lies.
Asymmetry, disproportions in the body usually go with asymmetries and disproportions in the mind.
And who looks like a Korean usually has many characteristics of the common Korean.
So obvious...

I do wonder how this feminism vs Islam war will turn out..I'm thinking some kind of fusion will happen, a modification of Islam in a feminized direction.

YrAfanc wrote:

I do wonder how this feminism vs Islam war will turn out..I'm thinking some kind of fusion will happen, a modification of Islam in a feminized direction.

I think feminism is going to embrace Islam and the Hijab.
Liberation can mean whatever, it has jumped the shark a long time ago.

Imagine they wouldn't have vilified only the European male but also the European female.
It wouldn't have worked. That would have driven both to reject the authorities in place and create a future together.
Or let's say they would have vilified the European female and not the male. There would probably be much more European children being born than in any other case, for the near future at least.
Maybe not the best quality but still.

No, this was and is the best way to seduce a society to destroy its own genetic lineage.

I think the low quality being produced in the age which vilified women is part of the reason for the fallout today.

Females never know, rarely care, but often pay the price for their betrayals and lies against others, especially when women offend other women, their own kind, in this way. Females are creatures of "micro-aggression", forever avoiding or stepping-on egg shells throughout society, in every social interaction. Males tend to be more oblivious, rarely as cunning as a woman.

Thusly, the average female looks down upon the average male as something incompetent and stupid, despite all the declarations from men, of "superior intellect and logic". For women, such contrivances are nonsense and, most notably, impractical.