Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Noble Elitism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:27 am

A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.

One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.
An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.

Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.

Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.

Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expressing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.
Hannibal is erotic.
His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.
His game is a private one.

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:38 am

The basic component here is cynicism

Read the LaughingStock expose his inner motives:

LaughingStock wrote:
Link me the text so I can debunk it in this thread.  Smile

A position placing him in bad faith.
He is not interesting in understanding, but in debunking.
The easiest thing between constructing and destroying is the latter.

The man-child is not interested ni creating anything...his resentiment is full-on destruction - if he cannot find value then all values will be debunked. ridiculed, destroyed.
A boy pouting because other kids are having fun, wanting to ruin their game, because misery loves company.  

Nobility does not really interest him. His interest stops where he can find, in his mind, some weakness to exploit to deny it, to laugh at it.
he is given a text and a caricature exemplifying some basic component of the elitism in question, but he cannot find a weakness there to ridicule without looking foolish himself. so he asks for more, hoping something more will come up - something simper for his simple understanding.

Like an ape, when confronted with the nature of a man, will say;
"Yeah, all primates are like that! How is this one any different."  

An absolutist, he must believe in total divergence, nor difference in degree.
A simpleton, who becomes annoying when his desperate need to dismiss everything he cannot be, leads him to a clownish attitude.

He always speaks in bad faith, because outside of his fantasy where all is destroyed and he survives, no other alternative will do.
It's too late for him. He's already invested too much in his coming Armageddon to abandon it now.
His only mission is to eliminate any viable challenge to his total destruction scenario.
It's his only interest in philosophy, or in the world.

An Orthodox Jew psychology; a Hasidic Jew denouncing all Zionism if it stands in the way of the "final days".

Given this, discussing anything with this wretched creature is a lost cause.

Another aspect of a noble spirit - which I try to be - is knowing when the other is already brain-dead, and not to try to turn a Zombie into a human being.
Saving mankind, is not the goal.
Finding those rare few who can be called human, amongst all this variety of the living-dead is the goal.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:15 am

I'll respond to your posts and allegations in full later tonight when I am not working.


So, you're a creator Satyr? A creator of what exactly?

Human nature is destruction. All of human history destructive.

With entropy being an inevitability for everything I'm on the constantly winning side.

What are you trying to create that countless others before you have already tried creating?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:08 am

LaughingStock wrote:
I'll respond to your posts and allegations in full later tonight when I am not working.


So, you're a creator Satyr? A creator of what exactly?
ideas...ideals...

LaughingStock wrote:
Human nature is destruction. All of human history destructive.

With entropy being an inevitability for everything I'm on the constantly winning side.
Spoken like a true woman...
always on the side of the bigger power...always power by association.


LaughingStock wrote:
What are you trying to create that countless others before you have already tried creating?
Re-Create...all creativity is a combination of what was.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Kovacs



Gender : Male Posts : 62
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Yes

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:08 pm

Satyr wrote:
A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.
Then he failed, or, more likely, his desire to be seen undermined whatever precautions he put in place to keep him from being punished for his compulsions. He is as compulsive as Joker, just has a high culture veneer over it. Just like many plantation owners who were also 'above' their own barbarian natures in terms of self-image, but not in reality. Lector is not his compulsions, in his own mind, and hence can give ultimate punishments for rudeness - not necessarily at all culling the herd. The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force. (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)

Joker wears his damage out front. It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is. Lector pretends not to have damage. And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling. But he does not cull the weak. They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak. Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.

Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.



Quote :
One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.
But Joker cannot simply be chaos or he would not be so effective - also, here, depending on which of the even more versions of Joker we are dealing with. His goal is moving phoney organization and refinement around him into the chaos he experiences.
To do this he has to be just as precise and surgical as Lector.
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius. But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault. To do this the screenplaywriter and or director would have to be geniuses in Lector's fields. They have to imply or really declare it. But it simply would not be there. You would not be writing genius works of insight into human nature while at the same time having the constant compulsion to eat people who annoy you. It's gobblygook symbolmaking, though, hell, I enjoyed it also. And Hopkins managed to give him a deathly presence that made him interesting and seemingly real for the two hours. Joker is also problematic in terms of reality, but here the issue is less important because he is less pretentious.

Quote :
An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.
In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him. He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror. It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror. It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over. And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast. And compulsive in the OCD sense.

Quote :
Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.
As said, I do not see this. He has pet peeves, he does not cull weakness.

Joker, like our local watered down version here, wants the chaos he experiences as present in the current so called order to be out in the open. He is sick of the hypocrisy and hidden violence. Manson comes to mind also. Another boy-man incapable of stomaching the vast hypocrisy around him and incapable of not feeding it back to the classes and people he most felt it coming from.

Joker is hardly an ideal, but he is more honest than Lector, who like any prissy upper class with lots of refinement and social beauracracy - Think Shogun Japan or any culture where the upper classes have white wigs and powdered faces - is presenting a denial of his own bestiality and lack of control in the front. He may not even believe it as much as his fan here does. Impossible to know.

Quote :
Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.
Precisely. But he cannot control his compulsions and they have very similar results for both him and others.

Quote :
Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expr essing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.  
Hannibal is erotic.
That he is getting off on his proclivities is clear, but it is also clear that Joker is. Neither one is erotic for others who have any feeling at all.

Quote :
His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.  

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.  
His game is a private one.  

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.
Well, neither one is much something to shoot for. Any critique of Lector is not a putting of Joker on a pedastal. And since this section is really more of the same, my response is more of the same. Lector is in all his refinement primarily a lie and Joker
and small case joker here, hate that lie. All that pretense and smugness based on an denied self hatred and smoke and mirrors.

I admire neither Joker or joker, but where they do not admire Lector's smug pretense, there I agree.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:35 pm

Kovacs wrote:
Satyr wrote:
A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.
Then he failed, or, more likely, his desire to be seen undermined whatever precautions he put in place to keep him from being punished for his compulsions.   He is as compulsive as Joker, just has a high culture veneer over it.   Just like many plantation owners who were also 'above' their own barbarian natures in terms of self-image, but not in reality.   Lector is not his compulsions, in his own mind, and hence can give ultimate punishments for rudeness - not necessarily at all culling the herd.   The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force.  (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)

Joker wears his damage out front.  It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is.   Lector pretends not to have damage.   And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling.   But he does not cull the weak.   They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak.   Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.  

Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.



Quote :
One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.
But Joker cannot simply be chaos or he would not be so effective - also, here, depending on which of the even more versions of Joker we are dealing with.   His goal is moving phoney organization and refinement around him into the chaos he experiences.
To do this he has to be just as precise and surgical as Lector.
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius.   But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault.   To do this the screenplaywriter and or director would have to be geniuses in Lector's fields.   They have to imply or really declare it.   But it simply would not be there.    You would not be writing genius works of insight into human nature while at the same time having the constant compulsion to eat people who annoy you.   It's gobblygook symbolmaking, though, hell, I enjoyed it also.   And Hopkins managed to give him a deathly presence that made him interesting and seemingly real for the two hours.    Joker is also problematic in terms of reality, but here the issue is less important because he is less pretentious.

Quote :
An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.
In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him.   He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror.   It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror.  It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over.   And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast.   And compulsive in the OCD sense.

Quote :
Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.
As said, I do not see this.   He has pet peeves, he does not cull weakness.  

Joker, like our local watered down version here, wants the chaos he experiences as present in the current so called order to be out in the open.   He is sick of the hypocrisy and hidden violence.   Manson comes to mind also.  Another boy-man incapable of stomaching the vast hypocrisy around him and incapable of not feeding it back to the classes and people he most felt it coming from.

Joker is hardly an ideal, but he is more honest than Lector, who like any prissy upper class with lots of refinement and social beauracracy - Think Shogun Japan or any culture where the upper classes have white wigs and powdered faces - is presenting a denial of his own bestiality and lack of control in the front.   He may not even believe it as much as his fan here does.  Impossible to know.

Quote :
Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.
Precisely.   But he cannot control his compulsions and they have very similar results for both him and others.

Quote :
Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expr essing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.  
Hannibal is erotic.
That he is getting off on his proclivities is clear, but it is also clear that Joker is.   Neither one is erotic for others who have any feeling at all.

Quote :
His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.  

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.  
His game is a private one.  

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.
Well, neither one is much something to shoot for.   Any critique of Lector is not a putting of Joker on a pedastal.   And since this section is really more of the same, my response is more of the same.   Lector is in all his refinement primarily a lie and Joker
and small case joker here, hate that lie.  All that pretense and smugness based on an denied self hatred and smoke and mirrors.

I admire neither Joker or joker, but where they do not admire Lector's smug pretense, there I agree.
Interesting take (claps).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:40 pm

Satyr wrote:
LaughingStock wrote:
I'll respond to your posts and allegations in full later tonight when I am not working.


So, you're a creator Satyr? A creator of what exactly?
ideas...ideals...

LaughingStock wrote:
Human nature is destruction. All of human history destructive.

With entropy being an inevitability for everything I'm on the constantly winning side.
Spoken like a true woman...
always on the side of the bigger power...always power by association.


LaughingStock wrote:
What are you trying to create that countless others before you have already tried creating?
Re-Create...all creativity is a combination of what was.

Noble ideas and ideals. How very magical.........

What kind? Can you be more specific?


What are you trying recreate?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:45 pm

You know, a person like me is filled with ideas and ideals also.......

I wouldn't call myself very noble however.

I'm looking to do some of my own recreation eventually.

With all this talk about nobility I just want somebody to tell me what it means to be noble.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:01 pm

Kovacs wrote:

Then he failed, or, more likely, his desire to be seen undermined whatever precautions he put in place to keep him from being punished for his compulsions.   He is as compulsive as Joker, just has a high culture veneer over it.
He is a hunter.
A hunter hunts.
A wolf has a compulsion to hunt.
He controls his nature, he does not invent it.

Joker is a wild-card; Hannibal is in control.
Hannibal's style, his elegance, his demeanor...all controlled.

Joker is suicidal - he flips a coin to see if he lives or dies; Hannibal flips a coin to see if you live or die.

But hunting has its risks.

Kovacs wrote:
Just like many plantation owners who were also 'above' their own barbarian natures in terms of self-image, but not in reality.   Lector is not his compulsions, in his own mind, and hence can give ultimate punishments for rudeness - not necessarily at all culling the herd.   The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force.  (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)
He follows his rules, not the herd's.
The herd is all-inclusive; shares insecurities alleviated by communing.
He is solitary, seeking his own kind amongst the herd.

Kovacs wrote:
Joker wears his damage out front.  It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is.   Lector pretends not to have damage.   And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling.   But he does not cull the weak.   They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak.  Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.
"Damage" is your evaluation using your herd psychology.
Who, but the "damaged" would not associate with the herd...where it is safe?
herd=health
no-herd=ill

When Hannibal kills, it is not his own...no more than if Tarzan killed one of the apes in his troop.

Your identity is so caught-up with the sexual category homo sapient, that you must then eliminate the sexual component, the male/female, to make it all-inclusive, and uniform.
But if so, if human is an idea, an ideal, a memetic identity, then you just opened the door to other such identifiers, which do not adhere to your secularized Judeo-Christian forms.

But he does cull the stronger amongst the weak...and who goes on-line with the strength of his convictions?
Do I go to the synagogue to find that poor old Jew to beat up on?
No.
I wait here, for that Jew with his circumcised cock in the air, to come to me.

Who, do I play with on ILP?
The arrogant douche-bags, like shit-Stain, who declare themselves "intellectuals"...and you, Kovacs.
Are you one of the weak?
Is Phoneee and Mooo?

Kovacs wrote:
Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.
But of course, imbecile, what else but trauma, chaos, could produce such a brilliant dancing star, in a world of complacent, dullards, hiding their fears beneath loving gestures?

What does not kill me, idiot...and if sheltered and protected, what a pathetic atrophied spirit you become.

Kovacs wrote:
But Joker cannot simply be chaos or he would not be so effective - also, here, depending on which of the even more versions of Joker we are dealing with.   His goal is moving phoney organization and refinement around him into the chaos he experiences.
To do this he has to be just as precise and surgical as Lector.
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius.   But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault.
Joker is a nihilist.
He wants the world to adapt to him.
Lector accepts the world as it is...not wanting to change a thing.
He does not belong to the world of such men...he is timeless.

His genius is how he manipulates the herd.
He knows them.

Kovacs wrote:
To do this the screenplaywriter and or director would have to be geniuses in Lector's fields.   They have to imply or really declare it.   But it simply would not be there.    You would not be writing genius works of insight into human nature while at the same time having the constant compulsion to eat people who annoy you.   It's gobblygook symbolmaking, though, hell, I enjoyed it also.   And Hopkins managed to give him a deathly presence that made him interesting and seemingly real for the two hours.    Joker is also problematic in terms of reality, but here the issue is less important because he is less pretentious.
It's because you, imbecile, still ascribe to the herd your values.
If it is popular to the herd, if it helps the herd...
Why would Lecter, who does not identify with the herd, write anything for them?
He writes sonnets, for himself.
We are not told if he writes essays, but he sketches...

You belong to the category of minds that only value what the many, some other, appreciates.
If there is nobody to appreciate it, it has no value.

But, in this case, who does he create his masterpieces of death for?
His design.

In the book, imbecile, Hannibal gets the girl...in the movie he loses the girl and his hand.
Harrison had other ideas about the character.
The television series seems more closer to that.
But we shall see...you never know with the established institutions, and what messages they want to give to the herd.
 
Kovacs wrote:
In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him.   He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror.   It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror.  It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over.   And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast.   And compulsive in the OCD sense.
How much self-love he truly has you will never know.
You missed it because the only love you know of is the one you receive reflected in others.

If you notice, he kills those that even a herd member, like you, would consider despicable.
The reporter....the pedophile billionaire...the cop who destroys Starlings career, the sicko psychologist etc.

Kovacs wrote:
Precisely.   But he cannot control his compulsions and they have very similar results for both him and others.
Can you control your compulsion to help the herd you belong to?
Can you control your compulsion to fuck a pretty girl, to eat a juicy steak?
How much and for how long?
He does what some only hope they could do.
He is, after all, a caricature.
He represents what IS controlled out there, you imbecile.  

Kovacs wrote:
I admire neither Joker or joker, but where they do not admire Lector's smug pretense, there I agree.
The pretense is towards the herd, and you witness it; you are a martyr to it, as a voyeur.

If a wolf wants to approach sheep, does it not pretend to be grass?

And you, do you not pretend to be smart, when you are nothing more than a bovine?
Do you not come here to protect your kind?

Shared narcissism:
- The belief that you DESERVE, eternal life, respect, rights, attention, just because you were born.
- The belief that your club is a club everyone wants to belong to, and if you don't it is because you are lying, or because you can't get in.
- The belief that you are healthy, because your condition is common, popular, shared.
- The belief that fear underlies all positions on life, except your own.
- The belief that empathy automatically means sympathy.
- The belief that all are pretentious except you, when you ask "ho do you do?".
- The belief that all compulsions are obsessive except your own.
- The belief that love is constructive, and hate is destructive.  
- The belief that all positions you despise are the result of trauma, or some other negative experience, except your own, or positions you can relate to.

What can be more pretentious, than the terror to face the world alone, becoming a desperate need to immerse yourself in a communal identity, and to then pretend you give a shit about everybody sharing in it?
What can be more narcissistic than identifying with a faceless, formless, ideal, convincing yourself you are its best representation?
What can be more hypocritical, than to think you value honesty and then attack it when it insults you, or says things you do not ant to believe are true?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:12 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:38 pm

LaughingStock wrote:


Noble ideas and ideals. How very magical.........

What kind? Can you be more specific?


What are you trying recreate?
Now why would I do that?

You have no part in it.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:40 pm

Satyr wrote:
LaughingStock wrote:


Noble ideas and ideals. How very magical.........

What kind? Can you be more specific?


What are you trying recreate?
Now why would I do that?

You have no part in it.


A secret then? Oh, I like secrets!


Now your philosophy is starting to resemble a form of mysticism.

I hope you don't go all shaving your head and such on me.

I look forward later tonight addressing your much larger posts.
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:39 pm

I hope Lyssa returns soon. Perhaps she can shed further light on the NE, bring it down to earth. I think I have a fairly good conception of what it is anyway, but some specifics require clarification. Much like the Joker, I'd like to see it applied out in the real world. Less abstractions, more examples.

To me, it's very reminiscent of Aristotle's golden mean, his magnanimous man (if I remember it correctly), and classical Athens in general. Sparta might be a bit too crude for it, and Alexandria, too decadent.

Among other things, Symmetry, in all things. Just as material and physical symmetry is beautiful, so too is there an ethnical, social, emotional and mental symmetry, and they're beautiful, and of course, they require refined, sophisticated sensations, emotions and intellect to appreciate them, and rank them above the inferior, which is why such evaluations must always be essentially esoteric, but perhaps more/less esoteric, depending on much the "elite", diverges from the inferior, on any given forum or in any given population.

In that other thread, I contrasted a Tony Montana is with the NE. Primitive, Hypermasculinity versus advanced, mitigated or moderated masculinity. Tony Montana, or Tony Soprano for that matter, are charismatics, powerful figures, and though they may lack some mental finesses, they read people and situations well enough to reap their hearts desire, but of course, they have no mastery over themselves. They're too extroverted, as well as too idealistic, and thus, their desires, as naturally bombastic and monstrous to begin with, go unchecked, and get the better of them in the end, or least in the case of the former, and in the case of much of those sorts.

The NE is master of himself, more than he is master of the world. He is realist, not an idealist, empirical, as opposed to top down, in tune with his past/nature and the nature of those around him, deeply in tune, but not overcome by it (mainly). He realizes, and he is able and willing to realize, that it is not otherness that is his primary responsibility/sphere of influence, but his response to otherness, for at the end of the day, we only control otherness, all otherness indirectly, it's only ourselves we have control over, and even here, only so much, we, as in our more aware selves, cannot reinvent our nature ex nihilo, but we can repress (nihilistic asceticism), or rather, direct, redirect and moderate (asceticism proper) our nature.

So he's a realist, bottom to up, from past to present/future, and of course it takes a certain kind of nature and nurture, a certain kind of intellect and personality to be as such, it's not a road all or even the majority are able/willing to walk down, but it's in all probability, the best one.

Is the NE divine? No, no, he has imperfections like others, just fewer, keeping with realism and avoiding Christian or Stoic idealism. Christians rigidly divide the world into saved and damned, Stoics, wise and foolish. If the NE was perfect, what need would he have to manipulate his appetites, his appetites would be perfectly tuned with their environments. They may be more in tune than others, but not absolutely so, so his reason is by and large, able to compensate, for whatever the passions lack.

All men, some more than others, are born with imperfect passions, simply because nature is imperfect, but also because man is out of sync with the environments he's constructed for himself (the meme evolves faster than the gene), which is what gives way to decadence - gluttony, greed, sloth, and all the rest of them, and this too, points to the central importance of mastering oneself, as opposed to otherness, because "success can test ones mettle as surely as the strongest adversary" (laughs).

There's such a thing as too much, especially post-civilizing and socializing, and robbing the productive (or at least those who're able to satisfy societies needs and desires proportionately via their creativity/labor, not necessarily all productive, but the qualitatively productive) and giving to the unproductive, is itself a form of excess, little different than gluttony, drunkenness and all the rest of em, a kind of population obesity, or overpopulation (high quantity of low quality).

Yes species can be their own worst enemy, not just man, but many species have killed themselves by overgrazing, overfeeding, so the importance on inward dominance over outward dominance, needs to be more stressed in modernity than ever.

It's the classical ideal, elegant simplicity, refinement and sophistication, the golden mean, in between masculine and feminine, in between affluence and poverty, that is the NE. And of course, not everyone is able to master himself, due to poor genes and memes, and the necessity for ranking comes into play.

It's not that the NE wants to destroy the common man, necessarily, like a sociopath/psychopath, he merely prioritizes, his affection is conditional and discriminatory, he doesn't dole it out so easily, by and large he let's others fend for themselves, keeping in line with his meritocratic values. He only actively destroys another he comes across, if absolutely necessary, like if he's up against a total nihilist, or a dangerous lunatic, otherwise, he simply let's nature take its course.

He's not anti-pleasure, certainly not anti-life, but he prioritizes some pleasures over others, and perhaps, health and the healthy over pleasure, generally. Yes it's fundamentally about balance ultimately, and that's what makes it so elusive, because black/white are so much easier to deal with, so much easier to comprehend. You can teach mathematics, 1s and 0s in elementary, but can you teach ethics, really, can you teach moderation? Perhaps, but it's more difficult, and it varies, what's balanced for you might not be balanced for me, it varies from individual to individual, society to society, time to time, and place to place, but because we're all human we can meaningfully talk about it and often what applies to one, applies to all or most.

Balance in all things, in society even, between the master with a thousand slaves/serfs/proletariat, and a slave/serf/proletariat. Between riches and poverty. Between indulgence and abstinence, masculinity and femininity, artifice and nature, that's why it's so elusive, it's not as obvious as, king, or peasant, it's not delineated as that. It's that person somewhere in between everything, enigmatic, he can dine with kings and wrestle with the peasants, his allegiances and identifications are fundamentally to himself and a few of his kind, not to any fundamental social/economic categories.

Most men, those on the top and even those on the top, crave to be on top, whether it be a plutocratic top, or a kratocratic top, or whatever, but the NE, as I understand it, and no doubt I have poured some of my own understanding of things into it, is that elusive individual, who, because of his physical, and especially his mental symmetry as well as capacity (two different things, symmetry and capacity), could possibly reach the "highest" rungs if he so desired, but declines, I mean he might receive it if it falls into his lap, but otherwise, he would not reach for the stars, neither be too proud nor to humble, because he's able/willing to master himself, like that, which is what he does. He's a realist, and he knows that being on top for too long, too much food, women, wine, whatever it may be, perhaps even too much knowledge, or rather, information and idle talk/speculation/conjecture, spoils/comes with a price, being on top spoils or it certainly can, it spoils men as individuals, as societies, and it even spoils the whole earth, so he declines, he prefers to be somewhere in the middle, but he is not the same as with most middle men, who always strive for more, more, more, he reaches a certain point, hedonically, materially, socially.. and then he retires, preferring to ward off atrophy and excess.

Most here tend to focus on the masculine (genuine creativity/imagination/individualism, and not being different purely for the sake of it, charisma, competition, dominance..) aspect of the NE, and it may very well be a fundamentally masculine enterprise, but I think a female, some or a few, might be able to practice it too, but of course it would manifest itself differently, due to their peculiarities. Yeah people here, young men, tend to run away with the masculine aspects, and you see them with their avatars and what not, but ultimately at the end of the day, it, as far as I can fathom it, is about, proportion, harmony.. nothing in excess, the masculine preceding the feminine, perhaps, but not obliterating it, nor denying it.

It is the classical ideal, it is to what all of western civilization, the whole of it turns to, and revolves around, in contrast to Judea, but also perhaps, in contrast to Alexandria, and Rome after the fall of the republic, and all that went on there, all the pomp, frivolity and flamboyance. It doesn't belong to Satyr, or Lyssa, no, and no one could ever hope to fully embody it, but perhaps, approximate it. Satyr and Lyssa are merely carrying the torch to the best of their ability, passing it onto the next generation, or a few among them. The whole of the earth could never become like Athens was, of course, it's an ideal, a city of relatively free, self-governing soldiers/politicians/men, neither master nor slaves themselves, but of course many of them owned a few slaves.

Perhaps America partly achieved something like it during the 19th and early 20th centuries, I'm not sure, that's just how I always thought of it, but both Athens and America were only able to achieve such political, economic and moral excellence because of peculiar genes apprehending peculiar memes at that time. Of course America, as it is now, filled with negroes, decadent whites, and under the thumb of Jerusalem, could never hope to rekindle its former glory, and is surely in permanent decline.

Anyway.. that is all, that is the best I can do with the information I've been given. This was not me trying to ape Satyr or Lyssa, rather, this is just my interpretation of what they, as well as some others I've read and listened to over the years, seem to be saying, and in many regards, my interpretation is just as important to me as what they actually think and feel about the world, because like any interpretation ought to be, there's a lot of me, what I've always thought about the world, in it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:26 pm

Nobility like so called goodness and morality is all fake or filled with endless pretensions.

That's where I'm going with all of this Diver.

Noble elites?  Just a bunch of people trying to make themselves look special, unique, favorable, and chosen.  All pretend and illusion.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:41 pm

To Lyssa:

Quote :
Noble elitism is the calm born of cold discrimination and bold self-awareness.


Everybody is discriminating and has awareness.



Quote :
A Heightened consciousness that has observed, analyzed, lived, experienced, vast spectrums of life, raises it to a knowledge and a far-sightedness that puts distance between it and all the rest.

These people are special snowflakes and cases that need to be enshrined on a kind of pedestal or throne, huh?

People who glamorize themselves that really do believe they are more special than everybody else.  One word:  Arrogance.




Quote :
This "distance" is born of honest "clarity" with oneself and the world.

This "distance" is not the same as the "distance" in the ladder of the corporate elites who have climbed via capital, and for whom maximizing capital is the sole end.

It's the same thing.  Notice that all your old style type of aristocracy like whores have sold themselves into the modern oligarchy or plutocracy.

This is why your virtuous aristocrats no longer exist in the world, although one could say even further that in history they never really did exist to begin with.

Quote :
A Noble elite is a creative individual. He "creates wealth"... in the form of capital-irreducible art, visions, philosophy, etc.

What you call commoners do all of these things also.

What you and Satyr are doing is nothing more than fetishizing certain individuals over all others.  A sort of fixation.


Quote :
He distinguishes himself from the rest and the plutocratic elite because of his overflowing spirit - his abundant consciousness, which is his real wealth and power.
His spirit is masculine and it Wants to distinguish itself and stand apart - not simply for the sake of standing apart (in which case you get the decadent hipsters and such specimens recently posted), but in the aspiration of seeking clarity about himself, in the aspiration of self-reliance to define his freedom.


A special snowflake separate from the rest supposedly.......


Quote :
And the most heightened consciousness is born of knowing your past, and the chain that made you possible. - Which is what you confuse for "outdated living in the past", or "going back to stoneage aristocracy"...

Anybody can know their past by reading a history book.

You and Satyr want to revive an age that will never come back to this world.




Quote :
This will be news to you that Nietzsche himself said, aristocracy is not just about being blue-eyed and blond-haired - which your best pal Neon advocates and funnily you don't take him to task for it,,, but an aristocracy also of the Spirit. - Know Thyself.

I despise authority and therefore by association also despise any form of aristocracy.


Quote :
The Plutocratic Elites live to enjoy privileges and are a function of it, whereas the Noble Elite bestow privileges; they determine the highest value beyond pain/pleasure, from their strength and their deeds - the Plutocrats merely try to capitalize on it, parasitism. Privileges are a function of the Noble Elite, and not the other way.

You're trying so desperately to show difference between the two where there isn't any.

Nobility is entirely absent of this world much as morality is.
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1832
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:07 pm

I would say that Joker and Batman are presentations of noble characters in their own regard.

To me nobility is just exceptional people in exceptional circumstances, poor or rich don't matter.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:11 pm

Satyr wrote:
A distinct behavioral difference between Joker and Hannibal is Joker's suicidal nature.
Both are not afraid of dying but one actually doesn't care if he does.
The extravagance of appearance is supposed to draw attention to the drama unfolding - a "look at me" call, whereas Hannibal wants to disappear in the herd.

One is chaos, reaching the level of absurdity, the other is controlled passion.
An economy of movement - eloquence.
Hannibal's home is spotless, organized, like his mind - the opposite of chaotic.

Joker is out for vengeance, a wake-up call to all who believe in order.
Hannibal is a culling machine - a wolf weeding out weakness form a herd he does not identify with.
He contributes to their health.

Joker considers himself and Batman "freaks".
Hannibal considers himself healthy, superior, not of the same kind.

Joker's Thymos is a hyperbolic rage, expressing itself in laughter.
Cynicism is Joker's main trait.  
Hannibal is erotic.
His rage is focused and precise - surgical.
He seduces, more than he slaughters.
Joker cannot seduce....he is ungraceful, lacking class, and refinement - a man who never grew up.  

Joker is base and vulgar.
Hannibal can enjoy the finer things in life.

Joker needs attention.
His joke is public.
Hannibal avoids it.  
His game is a private one.  

Joker destroys; Hannibal designs.

All cinema and archetypal characters aside you want to reform authority it seems with your praise of an aristocracy where I on the other hand want to destroy it all together or at the very least neutralize it to the point of impotency.

You're consumed with higher culture and values.  I'm not.

I have an understanding of how all values and cultures inevitably destroy themselves.

Why bother with either at all?
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:17 pm

LaughingMan wrote:
Nobility like so called goodness and morality is all fake or filled with endless pretensions.

That's where I'm going with all of this Diver.

Noble elites?  Just a bunch of people trying to make themselves look special, unique, favorable, and chosen.  All pretend and illusion.
I half agree with you.

Although I've never read the book, and I don't care to (I'm not much of an offline reader, especially when it comes to fiction (I've seen the films), I think the truth about Hannibal, and maybe those who aspire to be him, or something like him, is likely somewhere in between Satyr's portraits of him, and kovac's.. but for me, things are rarely so, black/white, like either they, "noble elites", or whatever you want to call them, exist, or they don't, either virtue exists, or it doesn't, and so on, which is why what you, or the cynic says, appeals to me just as much, as what they say.

Here's my honest assessment of them, I like quite a bit of what Satyr, Lyssa and others have to say, about the human condition, about morals and values and so on, but at the same time, I could do without all the pretense, pomp, excess and embellishment. They speak to people so arrogantly, inhumanly, so hung up on the ideal, they rarely bring it down to earth and apply. It's not that I'm inherently against pride, or superiority, no it's not that simple, 1/0, it's just that it's too much for my liking, too much idealism and it sickens me, makes me want to puke. They don't talk to people the way you and I talk to one another, like real people, but then of course they say they have their reasons, they're driving away the weak, the moronic, etcetera, and I don't care.

They play games, and I don't like game players.

Let me ask you this, do you not have your ideals, which you consider to be superior to that of others? Do you not feel your ideals give you an edge, in the struggle for survival, which is what you're into right? I mean if you were just into hedonism, you would've given up a long time ago, it would've been so easy for you I'm sure, being surrounded by all the crack and filth, to give in, like so many in your position do, but you have dreams, right, ambition? Just a different sort. Well, Satyr and Lyssa and their ilk, whoever they might be, have their ambition too, it's just different than yours, and while there's is more realistic than yours for the time being, yes, if things change, and they very well could soon, then I would see more value in the sorts of schemes your proposing, but for the moment, I can only discuss such schemes with you, I am not prepared to act on them.

Sure, we all perish, but that's life.

I think, what we do or don't do, echoes in eternity, and that ripples, can turn into waves, so that by choosing to hang on in spite of it all, we bring ourselves and our species and life itself a little further from extinction. That's what we do, I don't believe your an agent of chaos, absolutely, correct me if I'm wrong, are you not trying to bring about a more, cynical, sort of order, out of chaos? One that benefits you, and that might benefit, your ilk/companions?


Last edited by Divergense on Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:38 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:23 pm

Satyr wrote:
The basic component here is cynicism

Read the LaughingStock expose his inner motives:

LaughingStock wrote:
Link me the text so I can debunk it in this thread.  Smile

A position placing him in bad faith.
He is not interesting in understanding, but in debunking.
The easiest thing between constructing and destroying is the latter.

The man-child is not interested ni creating anything...his resentiment is full-on destruction - if he cannot find value then all values will be debunked. ridiculed, destroyed.
A boy pouting because other kids are having fun, wanting to ruin their game, because misery loves company.  

Nobility does not really interest him. His interest stops where he can find, in his mind, some weakness to exploit to deny it, to laugh at it.
he is given a text and a caricature exemplifying some basic component of the elitism in question, but he cannot find a weakness there to ridicule without looking foolish himself. so he asks for more, hoping something more will come up - something simper for his simple understanding.

Like an ape, when confronted with the nature of a man, will say;
"Yeah, all primates are like that! How is this one any different."  

An absolutist, he must believe in total divergence, nor difference in degree.
A simpleton, who becomes annoying when his desperate need to dismiss everything he cannot be, leads him to a clownish attitude.

He always speaks in bad faith, because outside of his fantasy where all is destroyed and he survives, no other alternative will do.
It's too late for him. He's already invested too much in his coming Armageddon to abandon it now.
His only mission is to eliminate any viable challenge to his total destruction scenario.
It's his only interest in philosophy, or in the world.

An Orthodox Jew psychology; a Hasidic Jew denouncing all Zionism if it stands in the way of the "final days".

Given this, discussing anything with this wretched creature is a lost cause.

Another aspect of a noble spirit - which I try to be - is knowing when the other is already brain-dead, and not to try to turn a Zombie into a human being.
Saving mankind, is not the goal.
Finding those rare few who can be called human, amongst all this variety of the living-dead is the goal.


I'm interested in understanding when there is something to understand.

The thing about destruction Satyr is that it also creates.  Destruction and creation go hand in hand.

Destruction is the means of my philosophy but not the destination.

Quote :
A boy pouting because other kids are having fun, wanting to ruin their game, because misery loves company.
 

There is a lot of miserable people out there in the world.  Imagine if somebody could unite all the miserable people in the world and create an army of them.

The kids having fun shouldn't complain since after all they're the ones that created all the miserable people in the world to begin with.

Their happiness at the expense of other peoples misery or misfortune.


Quote :
Nobility does not really interest him. His interest stops where he can find, in his mind, some weakness to exploit to deny it, to laugh at it.
he is given a text and a caricature exemplifying some basic component of the elitism in question, but he cannot find a weakness there to ridicule without looking foolish himself. so he asks for more, hoping something more will come up - something simper for his simple understanding.


Poor Satyr.  He could never be accepted or cut it in the current modern aristocracy where instead he dreams of reviving a much older one from history's past as a competing fixation of his.

He of course wants to reform authority because actually living without one has never crossed his mind.  An individual that very much needs authority or at the very least wants to have some over others.


   
Quote :
Like an ape, when confronted with the nature of a man, will say;
   "Yeah, all primates are like that! How is this one any different."  

   An absolutist, he must believe in total divergence, nor difference in degree.
   A simpleton, who becomes annoying when his desperate need to dismiss everything he cannot be, leads him to a clownish attitude.

   He always speaks in bad faith, because outside of his fantasy where all is destroyed and he survives, no other alternative will do.
   It's too late for him. He's already invested too much in his coming Armageddon to abandon it now.
   His only mission is to eliminate any viable challenge to his total destruction scenario.
   It's his only interest in philosophy, or in the world.

   An Orthodox Jew psychology; a Hasidic Jew denouncing all Zionism if it stands in the way of the "final days".

   Given this, discussing anything with this wretched creature is a lost cause.

   Another aspect of a noble spirit - which I try to be - is knowing when the other is already brain-dead, and not to try to turn a Zombie into a human being.
   Saving mankind, is not the goal.
   Finding those rare few who can be called human, amongst all this variety of the living-dead is the goal.


It's always funny when Satyr compares people or things to Christianity and Judaism considering how he is always talking about himself and his group of destined chosenites.

The chosen people!


The chosenites bestowed by nature and existence supremacy over the unwashed masses. Over the nonbelievers or nonconformers...

How very religious of you Satyr.


Next we'll be hearing something about a rapture from Satyr that will gather up the chosen people.
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:45 pm

Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:47 pm

Quote :
Satyr: The noble elite accepts the world as it is...not wanting to change a thing.
He does not belong to the world of such men...he is timeless.

Are you a messiah figure Satyr?

John 18:36

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.


Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:50 pm

Divergense wrote:
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work. It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.


Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:54 pm

Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.


Last edited by LaughingMan on Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:02 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:58 pm

LaughingMan wrote:
Divergense wrote:
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work.  It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.
Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:06 am

Divergense wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:
Divergense wrote:
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work.  It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.
Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?

I'm apolitical.  I'm an individualist.  Collective aspirations don't interest me unless it is something that I can gain from.

I survive in this world in my daily activities because of necessity.

I simply do what I have to in order to get by.

If however I was given the option to destroy this entire modern existence I would do it within seconds without the slightest hesitance.
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:32 am

...well that about does it for me, I'm through discussing Satyr and Lyssa's philosophy, or anyone else's for that matter, from a relatively neutral perspective, which is not to say there was nothing of me in anything I wrote, there was, but I'm holding back. If I post anything more on this forum, or anywhere else, it's going to be 100% me and my perspective, and anti-anything that dv8s from me and my perspective. In any case, I had fun, I think I understand Satyr's philosophy as good or better than anyone on this forum, other than the goat himself of course, and I appreciate it.. but it's not my own.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:06 am

...on 2nd thought, I thought I was partly holding back some fundamental opposition to Satyr's thought, but... upon further in introspection, now I'm not so sure. I think I agree with most of it, it's more the details than anything else. I mean what's not to like, know thyself, nothing in excess? Aren't those pretty much givens? I've got some more thinking to, but...

I feel more a little more sober than usual, I feel like I'm sobering up, I dunno...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:10 am

LaughingMan wrote:
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.

Play the hand we're dealt.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:12 am

LaughingMan wrote:
Divergense wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:
Divergense wrote:
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.

Satyr is an excellent contradiction.

On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.

This simply doesn't work.  It doesn't do much for consistency.

You're either one or the other.
Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?

I'm apolitical.  I'm an individualist.  Collective aspirations don't interest me unless it is something that I can gain from.

I survive in this world in my daily activities because of necessity.

I simply do what I have to in order to get by.

If however I was given the option to destroy this entire modern existence I would do it within seconds without the slightest hesitance.
I'm the same way, except for that last part.

I'm just going to let the world do what it does, and respond in kind.

Carve out my own niche, perhaps, my own little oasis.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:16 am

Divergense wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.

Play the hand we're dealt.

Play the hand we're dealt?

I find that intolerable.
Back to top Go down
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:20 am

Know thyself... it's been tough, I've had a love/hate relationship with myself for the past few years, but in the main, I think, I have chosen to stare into that abyss, rather than look away from it, I'm not sure why. I guess I'm just curious, and I pride myself on being strong, in tune with reality. I have strengths and weaknesses, I'm an organic person. Knowing the world has been easier than knowing myself, it's so much easier to perceive the flaw, in otherness.

Nothing in excess... I couldn't agree more, this has been my philosophy for the bulk of my life, long before I came here. My problem has generally been deficiency, rather than excess, except when it comes to thinking. If I could get behind any principle, it would be this one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1832
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:41 am

Divergense, you are like me in the sense that you can see all the colors of the spectrum. Once you see all the difference of perspectives, living life "normally" is a redundancy.


Joker,

I used to believe that authority over others was profane. But I slowly realize now, especially with females, that people abhor self responsibility, independence, and individuality. Most people cannot live alone, and the thought of being alone, scares the shit out of them. Consider a beautiful woman, or even an average looking one, she will live her life full of constant sexual attention from men. She will never be deprived of sexual attractions.

The male and female difference, obviously proves that authority is not the same for everybody.

Females despise authority, and want to destroy it. Because females don't want to be responsible for themselves, and their mistakes. A female's privilege is guarded by an eternal, systemic, innocence.

Noble types tend to be male, not female. Males are leaders, meaning that authority comes naturally to a leader. An exemplary human cannot help but stand out above or apart from the rest.

And the "apart" is the essence of Joker, or Batman, archetype. Joker and Batman both want to, and do, stand apart from everybody else. It doesn't have to be intentional.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kovacs



Gender : Male Posts : 62
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Yes

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:34 am

It should be stated up front that the obvious irony here is we have two males arguing over who has the better superhero AND one of these two is saying the other one is a boy man.  I say superhero or super anti-hero really, this being obvious with Joker and given the middle brow nature of Silence of the Lambs and the comic book features in the movie itself – that prison is nicely D.C. comic land – also true for Lector.   That two males have locked onto and have interwoven their personalities with these kinds of characters is adolescent.   And consistent with his choice joker is probably more likely to admit this element of his temperament than Satyr.   The latter sharing with his superhero a centering on pretense, form denying content.  I am not that.  That is not me.

As an aside Satyr may justify – and has in a number of ways in the past – his rudeness – mentioned in my previous post – but Lector is simply not rude.  He doesn’t simply dislike what he considers rudeness in others but avoids the hypocrisy of barfing up childish playground stuff  on other people as well.   And then, Lector would likely kill Saytr for how he sometimes speaks to women.  Satyr does not have the option of tossing his sperm on them, but he comes as close as he can via the internet.   If you have an ideal and lord it over others and get off on thinking this is me, it’s a good idea to actually investigate how the ideal would react to you.   If one can do this honestly it cuts through a lot of BS.
Clearly this is the before state here.  

Not that Laughing man would fare better with Joker.   Joker would use Laughing man.  Secret a bomb on him, tell him to pickpocket some official and while Laughing man was reaching into the official’s pocket…boom.  His earnestness would be an opportunity for joker and nothing more.

So let’s move from the choice, since it is not a choice one needs to make, between admiring one or the other of these fictional characters.  One has been personally damaged.  This same one has the temperament and desires that do not fit with normal society.   The damage and temperament issues are so deep that Joker does not have the bourgeois fit in with the Jones option that Lector manages for some portion of his life.   Joker cannot fake, because of temperament and also because of the particular damage he went through – rather than Lector’s witnessing atrocity.   So his reaction is to be an avatar for Shiva.   Lector is necessarily not political.   He can, by virtue of a weaker set of interpersonal passions, control himself, put on a mask, fit in, get by in normal society –at least for a while.   He also gets off, literally, on humans in situ.   He does not want a change in society.  He likes to suck on them in place, in their niches.   Clarice IN her life.    You can see the cost of being in the presence of Lector’s vamparitic curiousity in those prison scenes.    This is not an exchange of information.   Vital essence is exchanged for information.   Just as the local Satyr needs the process of deciding quickly what box someone is in – thus relaxing his domination/submission fears – and then getting off on his definition of the other –which has an actual exchange of energy underneath it, this why most of the people who stay near Satyr will always immediately feed him this energy by bowing down up front, since it feels better to give this energy than have it sucked.  (their protests of independence notwithstanding)  Nothing to be smug about here, unless fans of Lector want to look down on Joker from a tabula rasa assumption about the human organism.   Each is striving for what they want given what they can control and what they cannot control.    Lector, the obvious hedonist, ironic that, keeping his radical split from society secret as long as he can.   This allows him to pursue his pleasures – so dangerous they put him, in the end, in the position Joker chooses from the beginning.    
Lector the typical Victorian with a double life.   The strictly controlled façade, but instead of some eccentric hobby or an affair with the pastor’s wife or homosexuality, he eats people he kills.   He is split, pleased with the split, proud of conquering himself, disdainful of others who do not worship the split or cannot make such a radical split in themselves and this very disdain is the vampire in him (them).   Victorians need some kind of boor or barbarian to look down on.   Victorianism is a narcissism that needs to be constantly fed.   The craving to no longer lead a double life is seen in the need to have a relation with those whose passions are on their sleeves.   But the unification never comes because their disdain is habit.    It is all about I am not them, so I am great.  A return to the scene of the crime they committed against themselves.   Not wanting to feel the cost of their own self-disdain, they reenact it with others who are more unified selves.

Laughing man and Satyr and their superheroes also split over Romantic versus Classic lines.   The classicist thinking he is not a hedonist because of the control.   He sips his hedonism, but it is hedonism.    Joker, because he does not worship a split in the self, is more himself and would find Lector in need of unification, like everyone else.   He sees the Joker in Lector and the lie.   Lector would accurately see the hopelessness and lack of self care in Joker.   Neither one creates very much.   They both create ideals, one where the Joker in everyone is now on the surface, the other precisely the kinds of empty forms created by all Victorian/effete overcultures.   We will not see a symphony, novel, painting, scientific discovery come out of any real life Satyr.    Joker or at least LM has accepted this about himself – though amazingly our real life Joker, yes, laughing man, has an actual gift for prose, but not one suited to argument, but well suited to novels – while Satyr pretends he wouldn’t really deep down want to actually create something since this would mean facing his own sense of being a failure. I create ideals. LOL.   

The two humans likely have very parallel temperaments and experiences trends that there heroes have.    Satyr can fit in and bullshit much better than Joker can.   Joker can’t hide the knife scar.   If Satyr wants to feel smug about this, well that just fits with the temperament he has and is one of the weaknesses of his own character type.  

In school, Laughing man types often get diagnoses like ADHD, because schools and petty administrators have to think of kids sitting in rows not moving and speaking except when called on as normal, so anyone not thriving in that situation is abnormal.   What a joke. (one thing both Satyr and LM would be pleased by is the coming death of the prison administrator at Lector's hand, though for different reasons)  Sadly Satyr who thrives much more than Laughing man does in the parallel adult society sees himself as superior.   Laughing man would have thrived, or done better at least, in schooling that was more apprentice type scenarios, that involved bodies in motion and some outlet for his aggression.   Once these were common, from that base he might well have been able to explore more intellectual ends in his own way.    Being less able to lie and also politically less pleased with a double life than Lector or Satyr, he is moved to the periphery.   He is likely though partially compensated for this in that he embodies himself more clearly.     He has not given up, while Lector conquered himself FOR society, of course Satyr will see this as simply being a better chess player than Joker.   Not wanting to look at the damage done by being his own jailer and self murderer.

Now my focus could lead a reader, or readers here given their habits, to a shallow conclusion that I think Joker is better or even Laughing man is better.  Hardly.  In context, an environment with asslickers for one, who are thus committed to siding against the other, there is less need to point out the problems of Joker/LM.   This will come on its own.

Another aside: Laughing man is of course  younger.  Hard to say where the boy man will be when he reaches Satyr’s age.   If he does.  And that is a real issue.  Will he reach that age?   Will he see the end of the decade, even?

Write, boy, write.  And not screeds about the end of the world.  Not that there is anything wrong with those.   But other people do that just fine and your talent lies elsewhere.   Write fiction based on what you know.   Writing fiction and being an angry, bitter misanthrope go together rosily.   You might even end up not needing to ever work at McDonald’s or sleep over a vent again.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:16 am

*Sighs*  *Looks at post above*


While I do like some conversations concerning Jungian Archetypes and fictional cases of alter egos sometimes also a movie is just a fucking movie. Nothing else guys.

 Cool
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:47 am

A superhero is an accentuation of some basic ideals.

Hannibal is not verbally aggressive because he KILLS!!!!
He expunges, from the face of the earth, what assaults his senses; what goes against his ideals; what insults his sense of self.
Hannibal kills those who insult his aesthetics.
This contributes to his inner calm.
He need not tolerate the rude, or the base.  

All his victims are well-adjusted, "healthy" members of society, but corrupt, vulgar in ways Hannibal is not...
Hannibal pretends to preserve himself; they pretend because the pretense is the only self they know.
You must become corrupted to succeed in the world of men; you must buy into the lie to successfully sell it.
Every billionaire alive has manipulated, exploited, stolen, used others, and every single one has a justification and a benevolent reason he did so.  

In "real life" one would not be able to justify the risks associated with what the movie character can get away with.
Only a sociopath would do so.
There are Hannibals all around us, and in a world where the act is prohibited, the word must fill in.

But what is more ridiculous than debating about "superheros" - if that is all that we are doing - is a "man" who is obsessed with psychoanalyzing Satyr, leaving his ideas aside?
An obsession with the man behind the logos - in a medium where only the logos applies.
A Dr. Chilton type.

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

The desperation of a arrogant mind, so simple that it tries to make sense of what it cannot fully comprehend except as a theoretical cartoon-figure.
He can only understand using medical textbooks he's memorized all the lingo in.

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

A secret fascination with what intimidates it, to the point where he must reduce it to a level he can comprehend, and deal with it.
It sees in this "creature," a "monster" he wants to dissect, using his formulaic methods, to make a name for himself.
Not well-adjusted, successful, and "healthy", as he is.
First step, dislodge the other from its pedestal by changing the word "monster" to "cartoon".
The former is too flattering.

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

As an institutional "expert" he fits the role of the one who diagnoses what goes against the herd's best interests; what might disturb its slumber, or stress the cows to a level where it affects milk production.

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

He fits his role perfectly, and is compensated handsomely for it.
A "healer" of divergence from the norm - a uniformist.

The Dr. Chiltons study what they are told they must - to explain why they diverge from the norm.
They would never think of studying the norm itself, to see what traumas, what anxieties, what 'not so healthy' motives underlie its manifestations.

He sees pretenses in the different, but not amongst the cows, where he finds himself.
The "hello how are yous" the fake smiles, the dress to hide imperfections and to cultivate pretend uniqueness, the perfumed, trained, behaviors of civility that keep the production lines moving...these he considers "honest and healthy."
He sees "trauma" beneath everything that contradicts his "good life", but not in the dead-eyes of those he knows are too shallow and simple to cause any trouble for him.
He enjoys those - they make him feel at ease.
They comfort him with their predictable shallowness, while he tells himself he likes change (calling it progress).  
He sees an underlying "fear" in everything that refuses to lower itself to his comfortable norms, but never in the norms themselves.
Homophobia, racism, sexism, all fear-based, but not the closing of the senses to their reality - there, in that blind acceptance of whatever is considered "truth," he sees no fears, he finds no pretenses.

Because if he would, he might see them in himself.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:23 am

Life is agon: struggle, suffering.
A stress upon the organism
stress= suffering/pain.

This, would be considered a level of "trauma."
Attrition on the ordering/becoming of the organism.

In sheltering environments this stress never exceeds the endurable (the median level of endurance) - and only becomes apparent in the adolescent stage, when the individual realizes that he will not be able to remain honest and true to his nature, as he could as a child.
It is the weening stage, when the individual is pushed to deal with the world on his own.
This is the first "traumatic" psychological event, usually accompanied by a rebelliousness (anger, sadness), spurred on by hormonal changes which are going on at the same time.  
It's the stage where the individual realizes what parts of himself he will be able to express, and which parts he will have to repress.
A successful self-repression produces the "normal" type - the repressed parts expressing themselves subconsciously, through dreams, sexual fantasies, neurosis.
The less complex a mind is, the less he has to repress.
The"trauma" is lower.  
A simple mind will adjust much more easily, as there will be very little about him to adjust in this way.
Birds, having bird-brains, can live for years in a tiny cage.

In physical trauma, if death does not follow, there's scarring.
A thickening of the tissue; an increased numbness due to destroyed or buried nerves.
Trauma indicates an experience survived - it is worn with pride, unless one is born and raised as a spoiled, pampered, brat, trying to preserve that pristine skin softness of the child.

Without trauma, on some level, there is no growth.
To build a muscle you must stress it, traumatize it, tear it, so that when it heals it heals bigger, stronger, thicker.

We live in an age where that youthful, soft, smooth skin, lacking scars, is worshiped.
An age where controlled, artificially induced stresses are preferred.
This indicates how we cope with psychological stresses.  

------------

A man-child is not a man who involves himself in childish things, but one that involves himself in childish things in childish ways.

There would be no issue of dealing with imbeciles in a world where protections were absent - there would be no need for debate and endless conversations over who deserves what, and what "justice" means.
Only in an environment where weakness is preserved and allowed to propagate - valued as a virtue because it is malleable - would there be a need to justify why this is "good", and only then would there be a need to give the products of this sheltering reasons to feel proud of what they are - values to find self-esteem in, new definitions to make them "normal", where the term is flattering.
A mind what has not faces traumatic events, never grows up.
It doesn't have to.
those that do face traumatic events, not all deal with them in the same way.

Courage is not the absence of fear, it is a result of how one deals with it.
A protected mind, is not courageous when it has never faced death, or if it remains ignorant and naive.
And those who do face fear, some run and some fight - fight/flight.  

And so a child of divorced parents may turn out to be a criminal or become the president of the United States, and a child born and raised in harrowing condition of poverty, violence, death, may becomes fucked-up or may become brilliant.


To accuse anyone of fear, is stating the obvious; to ignore it in yourself, is disingenuous and hypocritical; to see fear in hate but not in love, is delusional; to use fear as an accusation, is naive.
The adversity is the necessary ingredient for a do or die scenario to unfold - sheltering is an atrophying; stagnation founded no comfort, predictability, certainty.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:51 am

Æon wrote:
Divergense, you are like me in the sense that you can see all the colors of the spectrum.  Once you see all the difference of perspectives, living life "normally" is a redundancy.
I never wanted to be normal, in fact, throughout most of my life, I've reveled in my abnormality. There's just one or two areas, I'm not proud of. Mainly, I wish I didn't have intrusive thought disorder (I have a peculiar brand of this disorder), which has interfered in many areas of my life. It's also made it even more difficult for me to ignore negativity in the world, others, and myself. I too have spectrum thinking, and being here, has only nourished it I think. In addition to my ITD, my problem has been idealism, not the worlds idealism, but my own. This is something I'm in the process of remedying. There's nothing wrong with striving per say, but striving to strive, or programming your striving like a robot, was my problem. All this is very complicated, and I don't want to get into it here, but yeah, I see the flaws and holes in everything too, and that's part of the reason I didn't buy into the consumerism, and all that, from a young age. I counted the cost, the negatives, and realized the carrots weren't with the sticks. Now what to do, but create your own world and your own values, despite whatever popular culture is up to.

Unlike most, my problem has been deficiency, rather than excess, but, maybe it's not so much of a problem, after all.


Last edited by Divergense on Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:12 pm

LaughingMan wrote:
Divergense wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.

I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.

Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.

Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.

I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.

Authority= Artifice              Chaos=The original balance of nature.

Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.

Play the hand we're dealt.

Play the hand we're dealt?

I find that intolerable.
I don't think playing the hand we're dealt and conforming are necessarily the same things, Joker.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:48 pm

To Kovacs:

Work at MCDonalds or sleep over a vent? *Laughs*

I'm a full time inspector now at a small agricultural corporation.

My drifter days are behind me. Hopefully....
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:58 pm

The thing about Moreno/ Kovacs is that he is so ready to judge others but in return never responds with his own beliefs or perceptions.

Does he even have any of his own?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:38 am

Differences Between Me And Satyr.

He wants to create new values and minimize nihilism by taming it.

He wants to domesticate nihilism.

I on the other hand revel in nihilism where I am perfectly content with it.

I want to unleash nihilism on the rest of the world.

While he is disgusted with modernity he is content existing within it feeding on those that exist within its confines.  I on the other hand view modernity as a mockery of nature and existence where if it was up to me I would destroy it all.  I am not content existing or living within its confines.

Satyr believes in the concept of noble elitism as a sort of perception that there are a group of chosen individuals out there to lead a collective social hierarchy or pyramid.

I believe the entire social hierarchy or pyramid to be a complete absurd joke which is something else I wish to destroy.  Just another mockery of nature.

Satyr is content with blending in with institutional authority in order to facilitate his own desires and to also assert his will. I on the other hand am anti authority where I refuse to blend in within its confines.


If Satyr disagrees with any of these assertions of mine he can feel free to correct me here which I'm sure he will eventually.  clown
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Noble Elitism

Back to top Go down
 
Noble Elitism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: