Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

As I used to proclaim, it's still true.

Civilization does retain some small degrees of nature. It's not that all humans have lost their deepest instincts and reflexes, in the same way a feline cat or canine dog have been removed from their predatory status as Lion and Wolf respectively. Tamed and docile, emasculated and feminized, domestication (hedonism and decadence) of all animals, not just homo sapiens, results in the same effects, and can be predicted.

Within civilization instinct must be fundamentally ignored. This ignoring and ignorance is called "political correctness". Humans are indoctrinated as such to re-world and re-describe reality in such a way as to misunderstand it. Instead of "educating" the young generations, they are misguided and lied to about causes and effects. Why do people murder, lie, cheat, steal? Why are their religious wars? Why does racism and sexism exist?

You could answer these questions rather definitively and simply if you were so inclined. But most are not. Pre-programmed, indoctrination is the slavery of humanity.

Ignoring reality is their number 1 priority. And this requires a lot of effort, energy, and manpower, along with constant vigilance. The movie "The Matrix" is the best, most popular example of these analogies and metaphors. Humanity is not ready and also unwilling to be "unplugged" from their subjectivity, infantile solipsism, and dream-worlds. You must understand that a slave will fight to maintain his and her slavery, after they've enjoyed its comforts for hundreds and thousands of years now.

When you meet a slave, as such populate these online forums, remember that his and her parents are slaves, and their grandparents, and their great-grandparents, for countless generations.

Rather those that are freer and freest are the ones always most willing and resistant, against such slavery. Only the highest type of willpower could, hypothetically, resist slavery from within the confines of civilization. And thus is the source and production of Philosophy proper.

Thoughts on Kant and his epistophysical "channels"

Kant flipped reality. His position is that our only channels to reality that are reliable are space and time. Everything else is not reliable. When it comes to a thing-in-itself, he has used that as his philosophical bogeyman to explain how there's apparently more than just space or time properties to objects. The properties of space and time are then the only reliable property we have of the thing in itself. But then, if we're to rely on appearance, how do we explain our doubt? Kant correctly points out the pitfalls of reasoning in his antimonies of reason - reasoning creating a doubt as to the object we are presented with. However, the doubt is always an expression of how we believe there is more to the story. More, as in, a spatial and temporal idea - possibility being the possible change of spatial properties (space) and its endurance (time). Reason itself is what is responsible for doubt. So if that is what's responsible, and that's what we're concerned with, then they must be the most authentic ideas, right? Wrong. It is completely self centered to presume what we concern ourselves with is what's the most true of reality. ;It is the very incomplete nature of our reason - it's disposition to be contradictory and incoherent, which makes it the antithesis of reality. What persists viscerally throughout all reason and doubt and appearance is change - that is, chaos. Chaos which is also inherited into incoherence and inconsistencies of reason.; [This conclusion made me uncomfortable, I don't like it. I won't necessarily be claiming it as true until further investigation]

I'm reading In Search of Ancient Ireland:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course, part of it was a search for how religious life actually was. I haven't finished it so I cannot yet recommend it - so far it is decent.

During a section of the book to do with the belief of deities and how sacrilege to them was an attempt to feel in control by the populace, I noted this:

We may picture a Aztec throwing sacrifices, people, into fire pits to try and appease the gods. We may laugh at this. However, what alternative did they think they had for these forces they couldn't control nor they thought they could adapt to? It was an attempt at something rather than a surrender of doing nothing. Notice, though, the pagan religions are filled with half god half humans. These are people who are somehow able to transcend and manipulate the gods plans.

Today (in the West) the closest we have to this is Jesus Christ, Muhammad or some other Prophet. However, they are never part-God, they are always either communicating with (separate from) or actually God.

The idea of a half god/half human, I would think, is a symbol of the Pagan spirit believing it can transcend its immediate nature - that it can influence or humble the Gods, even if for a moment - just as humans do with nature today. With the total disconnect of the divine from the human also came the dogmatic arrogance against nature.

Hope is an evolutionary safeguard. It evolved to keep an organism moving and persisting when encountered with a godlike chance of fatality - something outside their ability to adapt to. Hope is an ignorance, an ignoring of the fatal reality of a drought or some other disaster.  

Hope today is used by the modern, to ignore the fatal reality they confront - to create a hope through god or another bogeyman, the state or communistic idealism about the nature of man.

How was hope selected for? Maybe sexually when men showed confidence in the future, that women admired. Maybe in a eugenics way that hope is required, you need to hope like everyone else, in order to be accepted and not ostracized - you need to be open to being ignorant like everyone else. Or maybe those without hope would detach from their roots during disaster - would abandon their dwellings and attempt to move somewhere away from those with whom hope resided. Maybe they died. Maybe it was more advantageous for survival to stay around other humans - those who left were the ones who could not navigate the dangers of a human society in peril - they could not take the costs, of robbers or murderers and cannibals - likewise they maybe could not stomach resorting to these tactics either.. or not impose them if they could stomach it.

Or perhaps, sometimes, it is a willful arrogance and stubbornness. An acceptance of death fully cognizant of the consequence... but I would call this determinism more than hope.

All news we receive is interpreted by us as sad or happy news based on how it affects our power. But, our self-conscious mind doesn't have an entirely accurate gauge of its power, it simply has estimations.

Our estimations of the future become our expectations. We take information, accurate or not, and deduce, rationally or not, a probability of a future event. If we expect events to go a certain way, then we have already adjusted our estimates of our power accordingly, and so on obtaining the news of such events, nothing has changed regarding our estimations.

When we expect something beneficial we no longer seek other alternatives, when we don't expect something harmful we no longer guard against it. Conversely, When we don't expect something beneficial, we seek other alternatives, when we expect something harmful, we guard against it. We can see how the former, what we may call high expectations is characterized by tranquility, and the later, what we may call low expectations, is characterized by anxiety. In the former one is gaining health, but exposed, in the latter one is taxing one's health, but less vulnerable.

Through the "theory of forms" it becomes obvious how "perfect forms" is synonymous with "ideas".

Any idealism is a perfection, created by any and every individual. All persons with a brain, an evolved cognitive function, idealizes the world (reality) in different way. For one person, her ideals are simple and stupid. For another person, his ideals are much more complex, sophisticated, advanced, and intelligence. Regardless, both ideals constitute what a "perfect world", a utopia, an imagined world would be like, re-envisioned by each individual.

Perfection and ideas can be as simple as pulling over to a rest area on the road to use a toilet.

Or as complex as designing and building the Empire State building.

Either case, either ideal as they are formulating by individual brains, re-envision the world as "perfect", as something other than what is real, right now, past or present. Idealization is a function of "the future". Changing behaviors and environments to better fit the needs and desires of individuals, or of groups of humans.

Ideas are most competitive.

One person wants to take route A to the final destination. Another person in the transport wnats to take route B to the final destination.

Two conflicting ideals. Two minds. Two modes of perfection. Which one will dominate? Which path will be taken? Which ideal will be chosen?

Over-Balance

Too much anger leads to rage.
Too much sadness leads to suicide.
Too much joy leads carelessness.
Too much fear leads to shock.

Too much emotion can be fatal, as well as, not enough.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." -Yoda

Bh.Gita wrote:

"From anger comes delusion; from delusion, confused memory; from confused memory the ruin of reason; from ruin of reason, man finally perishes." [2.63]

/

Bh.Gita wrote:

"From anger delusion occurs, from delusion bewilderment of memory, after forgetfulness of memory the loss of spiritual intelligence and losing spiritual intelligence one perishes." [2.63]

They come for you physically if they can't get to you mentally.
Thanks for the physical attention, it meant-alot.
And for the roses, I was meaning to call you.

If the mind would actually be free from bodily constraints; and physical and cultural heritage would be arbitrary and not in relation with each other then there would be no meaningful point of orientation.

So those who declare themselves free from all natural limitations which they think of and experience as an intolerable, resentfulness inducing oppression are lost at sea.
There is no home-coming for them. They resent their home.

In my book: a mind free of bodily constraint and limit is called 'dead'.

Henry Quirk wrote:

In my book: a mind free of bodily constraint and limit is called 'dead'.

It's interesting that part of those who wish to escape the limitations of the body would prefer to have their mind be bound to an electronic device. Stored in a device which is known for being very good at retaining information, for requiring less maintenance, less vulnerability to attrition through time.
In other words, unchanging, which is the deadest state of affair I can think of among the dead things.

A modern is stranded on a deserted island.

Do words matter anymore? Do ideas matter? Or isn't it true and obvious, in the "objective world", in reality, soon enough, it is hunger and thirst that take over the mind? Back to nature. Outside civilization, nature, instinct, and reflex come flooding back. There's nobody to speak to. There's nobody to listen to. Except your stomach and parched throat. Those feelings, are reality.

The modern, the global civilization, will only remember nature in faint dreams, buried deep within the DNA, consciously forgotted, but still bubbling up in dreams or nightmares, from the unconscious (genetic) realm.

Dreams or nightmares, are the re-connection between the civil modern, and the uncivil, unprotected, pre-social existence of mankind. Where were you, 5000 years ago? What was your ancestor doing? Surviving came first.

How many moderns today can imagine this, and remember it? Except when it is their turn, to be stuck and stranded, on a desert island?


All these memes fade away and disappear, when mankind returns to nature. Words become meaningless.

Individuality

An individual is lost among humanity, within civilization. Millions of humans standing and walking and dancing shoulder to shoulder, but not a single connection between them. Their christian "love" is false. Their social masks are warn and transparent. Their motivations are barely more than an animal's. Luckily for them, their "education" and indoctrination keep their dull minds busy, running circles like a hamster in a cage.

This is a human zoo.

An individual is utterly alone, failing to re-connect to humanity, those around him, and unable to find a like mind, a similar soul. A truer, deeper re-connection is required. Something more primal and ancient. Something long forgotten.

Philosophers communicate across the ages, and great distances of space, or time.

Talking to each other, instantaneously, over thousands of miles. Thousands of years.

Have you ever picked up a book, a great book of wisdom, written explicitly for you???

The Philosophers speak to you. Are you listening?

Mr. Fang,

Exactly. Me: horrified by the idea I may be able to upload myself to a simulated or artificial brain, and horrified so many take to the idea like a fly takes to poop.

Now, as I sink into decrepitude, I wouldn't be against some good, old-fashioned, prosthetics. I could see myself bein' all 'Axel Pressbutton' (c'mon, who doesn't want a cleaver for a hand?), but leave the locus of me alone...I like my skull meat 'as is'.

What about the idea being transferred into a negro body, you get a good lump of dick with it.

Isn't that actually all about being a ''tranny''; trans-device and whatever.

G+ wrote:

The Mongrel sometimes believes he transcends Racial squabbles, and can see things clearer because he is comprised of two parts. But the Mongrel can never transcend anything because the Roots are Polluted and the Consciousness deformed. This is called The Curse of the Mongrel. Why do you think the Jews want them around?

Mongrels are alike trannies; they think they can switch sides and tastes just by association, feeeeeelz and dress up parties. The North-American Ground Ape is even capable to become a trans-nigger-Egyptun semi-god in the streets of Detroit where we are still eagerly waiting for pyramids, temples, arts and likewise architectural masterpieces to arise.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Mr. Fang,

Exactly. Me: horrified by the idea I may be able to upload myself to a simulated or artificial brain, and horrified so many take to the idea like a fly takes to poop.

Now, as I sink into decrepitude, I wouldn't be against some good, old-fashioned, prosthetics. I could see myself bein' all 'Axel Pressbutton' (c'mon, who doesn't want a cleaver for a hand?), but leave the locus of me alone...I like my skull meat 'as is'.

Hm, it's not like I can't hold a cleaver with my hand already.
But I find hooks for hands less unnerving than plastic hands.
Give me a mechanical hand that looks like a mechanical hand and not this fake hand imitation stuff.

Male Politics

It is a will of self determination, not domination. It is a freeing of will from the shackles of a foreboding power, that would in the future sometime impose their own will in an unfortuitous circumstance. The most excellent among high bred men is still only slightly such. Enough an advantage to take on one of those same men but not two. And two enough to take out the most excellent, but either would find more benefit from alliance with the superior than the fellow inferior. This is the push and pull of male politics, competition.

Today it is the absolute rejection of the superior, and the alliance of all inferior to level as much of the superior they can to their own level.

"Hm, it's not like I can't hold a cleaver with my hand already."

Not the same as 'being' the cleaver...'if i had me a cleaver (for a hand), i'd chop things in the mornin', i'd chop things in the evenin', all over this land!'

#

Mechanical hand: I agree...if I can't have a cleaver-hand, then I'll take a 'terminator' hand, all wicked steel and stuff...hooks work too (just don't scratch your ass with one).

From a movie -

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

Christian shepherd of a settler community greets two arriving strangers (two brothers).

From afar...
Christian Shepherd: God bless you, brothers!
Stranger 1: Hello!
Stranger 1 to Stranger 2: How does he know that we are brothers?
Stranger 2 to Stranger 1: I don't get it either.
CS: The lord has sent you to us!
S1: No... we've happened to come around by mere chance.
CS: What's up, why don't you come closer, brothers?


And then I realised...
The man of faith in god attributes what happens in the world to the work of god.
While modern man interprets what happens as something mysterious.
Well, before modern man called it mysterious there was a phase where he thought it was all figured out or soon to be figured out and we could write a book and be done with it.

But both those modern ideas are also found in the man of faith.
God knows everything.
and
God moves in mysterious ways.

and so it is with camys in the Dungeon.
Some things we know for sure, like all bachelors are unmarried.
And other things are, and will always be, mysterious and to demystify the mysterious or question the things we know for sure is heresy or bigotry or hate.

But all of this should not be surprising because the underlying biology of man hasn't changed that much in that time frame. Just new words to keep it appealing - the new mysterious stranger in town catches all the girls' eyes.

Edit - Mormons.

J-xt is not the only corrupting force which has become entrenched in modernity. The other force began its ascent during the sophistic enlightenment and hit early peaks in the figures of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It was altered under the realist philosophy of Machiavelli and championed first by the English scientists and out of the modern Enlightenment grew its clearest expression of Industrialism. It is a spirit distancing itself further and further from the Homeric, which was poetic and knew the wisdom of history.

Anfang wrote:

Some things we know for sure, like all bachelors are unmarried.

Only because marriage is a human construct, meaningless outside human brains.
To apply this "certainty" as a universal truth is to apply human construct upon a world that cares not.
Monogamy, for the human species, is a skyhook...to use the chimpanzee's metaphors.
Ironically skyhook is, itself, a skyhook.  
The chimpanzee is buried in its own contraptions, and the conundrum it finds itself in, is the product of its idealization, its "thinking" up there....and when brought down to earth a paradox emerges, and it cannot untangle itself from the linguistic trap it has placed itself within and enjoys being in.

For the chimp all are healthy and intelligent, so when Mary and John, her favourite people, find their subjective value judgments destroyed by the objective reality of other, it cannot comprehend it, trapped, as it is, in linguistic contraptions it refuses to untangle itself from by defining the word it is using.

In [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] vid, the faggot, liberal,"professor", gives us some substance through Habernas and his analysis if modernity and the difference between subjective and objective reasoning.
One that beautifully applies to the chimpanzee but also to all of modernity and their obsession with subjectivity, and their need to reduce all to a personal taste issue - symptom of Nihilistic dis-ease, and hedonistic self-medication.  
What relieves suffering/uncertainty is god, or the meaning of existence.

Satyr wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Some things we know for sure, like all bachelors are unmarried.

Only because marriage is a human construct, meaningless outside human brains.

And even that is often only 'rock solid' if understood in a very autistic way without context.
Somebody might still be 'married' to his work and be a bachelor at the same time and so on.

It's almost like....
The more one clings to some ideas and ideals to be true, like, love is always better than hate, and even if that is not openly stated but implicitly thought, the more such things need to be always true the more the world has to be shrouded in mystery.

The world is declared to be mysterious as to avoid shattering those unspoken but dearly held convictions. And the more the world is in your face, that it does not care about those dear convictions, the more they have to critically deconstruct it, in other words, bullshit around as to keep themselves from going mad about this schism between reality and what they dream up reality to be like.

Ethos wrote:

J-xt is not the only corrupting force which has become entrenched in modernity. The other force began its ascent during the sophistic enlightenment and hit early peaks in the figures of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It was altered under the realist philosophy of Machiavelli and championed first by the English scientists and out of the modern Enlightenment grew its clearest expression of Industrialism. It is a spirit distancing itself further and further from the Homeric, which was poetic and knew the wisdom of history.

There is something unsavoury about crude materialism and crude 'rationalism?', for me.
The kind of 'rationalism' which can be written down into a book and learned by heart but that's more of a gut reaction.

A: God loves you....
B: But why does my tummy hurt?
A: God works in mysterious ways...



A: Love is good.
B: Allah-Akhb---BOOM---
A: If only somebody would have loved him more then they wouldn't have... Ahhh, forget it, it's all mysterious and we can't really know why people think and do what they do.

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

The orgasmic effort of Jews.

Bought a new cell phone today...the old pantech finally crapped out on me...what I wanted was a simple phone for calls and messaging...shit outta luck...the cheapest model (still over-priced to me) has all manner of bells and whistles...I don't need a camera and web access and spread sheets and ass-wiping capacity...I just need a phone...there was a company, Jitterbug, made big ass phones for old people...that's what I want: a big slab of a phone that does nuthin' but handle calls and texts...haven't seen a commercial by Jitterbug in a coon's age...probably went under...every one wants to carry around a super computer...no market for the simple and limited any more...'cept for me...a market of one...soon, they'll be installing smart phones into people's skulls...then I'm really fucked...like I told Mr. Fang, I like my skull meat as it is...and: the manual that comes with the phone...a friggin' book is what it is...it's supposed to be a goddamn phone...one sheet, half filled with instruction ought to be enough...instead, I gotta wade through pages just to figure out how to turn the thing on...years back, I bought a Gateway computer...made sense that machine should come with a thick stack of operating instructs...phones are supposed to be simple...I look at it, waiting for it to declare itself my overlord...order me to lick its terminals while pinching its diodes...don't know about any of you but I've had just about enough of 'the world of tomorrow'...replaced the starter on my car earlier this week...could have done it myself if it weren't for the mass of computerized thingamabobs surrounding it, plugged into it...now, don't get me wrong...I use computers...am typing this, one-fingered, on an old ipad...I just resent the incorporation of computers into 'everything'...toilets with microchip-controlled flushes...when is enough, enough?