This is my first of many to whomever wishes to answer:
It seems that when a person is mature to his circumstances he has lived the type fully integrated; to have had time for thought precludes maturity. To be self-thought and mature while still under forty, how is this possible?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
This is my first of many to whomever wishes to answer:
It seems that when a person is mature to his circumstances he has lived the type fully integrated; to have had time for thought precludes maturity. To be self-thought and mature while still under forty, how is this possible?
Suffering. To not be sheltered, told comforting lies, protected from reality, allowed to live in fantasy beyond the brain's developmental years.
To be thrust into maturity early on, as a do or die, dilemma.
When Rushton talks about the "regression to the mean effect" for me it's also about the inherited mean not being cultivated to its fullest potentials. The genetic average is the mean of inheritance. The memetic average is the cultural mean, of what is considered "official, proper, truth, civility, politeness, self-evident, good manners, unifying rituals/traditions etc."
Necessity (need), being the mother of all invention (action), in lower degrees would result in a decrease of motive. The source, direction, the brain confronts necessity is also the direction it will be motivated to act towards.
For example: If the environment a child is raised in is relatively stable, ordered, predictable it loses interest. It finds there the expected, that which it takes for granted. But genes are unaffected by memetic interventions, and so need persists, though easily satiated, organically. The brain receives pressures from internal, organic sources. It turns it's exploitative eye of need inwards. It wants to find the source from which this relentless agitation is coming from. It is, relatively, comfortable, its basic needs met, yet restless, not filly satisfied.
Suffering. To not be sheltered, told comforting lies, protected from reality, allowed to live in fantasy beyond the brain's developmental years.
To be thrust into maturity early on, as a do or die, dilemma.
Death or maturity being the only options.
Quote :
When Rushton talks about the "regression to the mean effect" for me it's also about the inherited mean not being cultivated to its fullest potentials. The genetic average is the mean of inheritance. The memetic average is the cultural mean, of what is considered "official, proper, truth, civility, politeness, self-evident, good manners, unifying rituals/traditions etc."
To fully cultivate a phonetic type to its genetic type's potential could be said to be what is necessary for any living organism to reach maturity. For example, a fruit tree which is lacking water or soil with sufficient nutrients might produce fruit that goes from sour (immature) to rotten (sickly as in showing age) without ever reaching ripeness - ripeness being the fullest representation of maturity for such a simple things as fruit.
A human can lack nutrients while growing and end up stunted in size and if sever enough, even in health and intelligence; all of which can then be seen as signs of premature aging (rottenness). But, unlike fruit, humans also have memetic development which can be stunted. This can be because of a lack of the specifically appropriate education that reflects their origins, and the chance to prove themselves as adults. If male, the chance to "try or die", if female, for lack of clarity on the subject, I wouldn't presume to say more than to lack the chance to become fully feminine in character.
Quote :
Necessity (need), being the mother of all invention (action), in lower degrees would result in a decrease of motive. The source, direction, the brain confronts necessity is also the direction it will be motivated to act towards.
For example: If the environment a child is raised in is relatively stable, ordered, predictable it loses interest. It finds there the expected, that which it takes for granted. But genes are unaffected by memetic interventions, and so need persists, though easily satiated, organically. The brain receives pressures from internal, organic sources. It turns it's exploitative eye of need inwards. It wants to find the source from which this relentless agitation is coming from. It is, relatively, comfortable, its basic needs met, yet restless, not filly satisfied.
The suffering he will have faced due to what could be said to have been such a restless, boring, purposeless life would have been great. Furthering that, his boredom with his environment would have created a aloofness to it. So what little sustaining human interaction he would at least had, had he been involved, paying attention, would be then difficult for him to obtain. Consequently he would become somewhat of an outcast, furthering his pain.
If from a natural environment with a boring yet non-nihilistic "society", he will have an easier path to maturity.
A person raised in the society of nihilists will develop a sickly mentality due to this; still infected by nihilistic influences despite his lesser participation in the nihilistic society, his inner world would be rife with fantasy, making it difficult to find the direction needed to begin to know himself.
But, nihilism as an obstacle or not, it's a long path to obtaining self-knowledge in the uninspiring environment in question. Then using that self knowledge to create a purpose, a plan of action and implement it in a way the allows the person to finally hit against the societal walls in a meaningful, non-frantic way, and develop the callousness of this truer maturity - this maturity reflecting his nature as well as circumstances.
So, while grateful for what you've said on the matter, it's still difficult for me to comprehend how this can be done before the approximant age of forty - how a person who has always had the disposition to be "in, but not of, his environment", and develop wisdom (oneness with self) and that truer maturity.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
So what little sustaining human interaction he would at least had, had he been involved, paying attention, would be then difficult for him to obtain. Consequently he would become somewhat of an outcast, furthering his pain.
Only if he's associated himself with them. If I were to become an outcast of a chimp troop, would I suffer emotionally or simply on a utilitarian level? I would be alone even amongst their multitudes.
Stuart. wrote:
So it's still difficult for me to comprehend how this can be done before the approximant age of forty - how a person can always have had the disposition to be "in, but not of, his environment", and develop wisdom (oneness with self) and that truer maturity.
Level of awareness...level of tolerance...level of constitution.
Most, never have to face this dilemma. They are obtuse, simple, stupid, or remain immature, stunted, retarded due to circumstances or cowardice. Of the rest, most will perish...suicide, disease induced by stress, etc. The few will endure either because of a higher constitution or because they no longer give a shit.
How can one endure this perpetual constipation? Perhaps, some have the ability to absorb their excrement.
Or, if it does not kill them, they learn to push it out, and have a proper bowel movement.
Pressure... Pressure solves everything.
Take these morons that come here thinking they are free from need. They come here, contradicting the very premise they then propose to explain who they are.
It does not matter what word they use to justify it, what excuse. Humor, boredom, entertainment, whatever. Here they are.
Actions....actions being more honest than any words.
How can one endure this perpetual constipation? Perhaps, some have the ability to absorb their excrement.
Or, if it does not kill them, they learn to push it out, and have a proper bowel movement.
Maybe it's not so much a matter of some not giving a shit as it of them having the control to wait until a toilet can be found, or any place where the shit will be properly disposed, rather than it sitting there further fouling the place they must reside.
Quote :
Pressure... Pressure solves everything.
Take these morons that come here thinking they are free from need. They come here, contradicting the very premise they then propose to explain who they are.
It does not matter what word they use to justify it, what excuse. Humor, boredom, entertainment, whatever. Here they are.
Actions....actions being more honest than any words.
Generously, this forum is open for higher purposes. To think that some would have the nerve to come here unwashed, hungry and/or overly full, expecting to be gratified.
dannerz
Gender : Posts : 32 Join date : 2014-02-22 Location : edmonton alberta
Some cultures had things like a initiation into manhood, requirements and such. Cultures can place either a small or a large value on human life, or intelligence, or maturity. High values can be "cruel", though. Who would want to kill someone simply because they are an asshole? That is considered cruel by the western moderns. In a way, it seems to me that high values involve some degree of "cruelty".
In a way, it seems to me that high values involve some degree of "cruelty".
If a person with wisdom values something greatly, then he will have no revulsion to cruelty to preserve it if cruelty is both reasonable and necessary.
dannerz
Gender : Posts : 32 Join date : 2014-02-22 Location : edmonton alberta
In a way, it seems to me that high values involve some degree of "cruelty".
If a person with wisdom values something greatly, then he will have no revulsion to cruelty to preserve it if cruelty is both reasonable and necessary.
Most people don't realize that, though. When someone does some killing, it is usually because of an authority complex. It is not for the sake of virtues or love, or evolution. Instead, it is because someone didn't obey a law, or a ruler. I think the most noble person on earth, would kill all the bad persons he ever learned of, if he could do so safely. Truly bad persons, though. I think few would ever agree about this, though. So many things are rendered powerless by modern society, human nature, mentalities, etc.
dannerz
Gender : Posts : 32 Join date : 2014-02-22 Location : edmonton alberta
the essence of being exploited, harmed, insulted, or abused, it all comes from the inability to stop or destroy offenders. This is why, if you want to live in a world where nobody hurts or abuses you much, you need to be able to rise up and kill, or imprison.
But if you allow people to form small armies, they will start to pull shit instead of killing the worst persons and threats to society and themselves.
This stems from one of my visions of a different kind of species and how they operate. What works for them wouldn't work for humans. A hell of a lot of good things don't work well for humanity due to the deep seeded madness of humans in general.
I think the most noble person on earth, would kill all the bad persons he ever learned of, if he could do so safely. Truly bad persons, though. I think few would ever agree about this, though. So many things are rendered powerless by modern society, human nature, mentalities, etc.
It's better not to think of what he would do if he could do anything safely. Realistically, as you say, people are mostly powerless to shape the world as they please.
Quote :
the essence of being exploited, harmed, insulted, or abused, it all comes from the inability to stop or destroy offenders. This is why, if you want to live in a world where nobody hurts or abuses you much, you need to be able to rise up and kill, or imprison.
Firstly, the desire for absolute safety isn't necessarily noble, secondly, one may as well learn to hide, or blend in, when necessary, than insist on taking an authoritative role.
I notice you mention insult. Of all that the lowest of the masses can do to one of a higher mentality, they certainly can't insult them. If a dog bites me, I'm not insulted. If an imbecile outsmarts me on an off day, I'm not insulted, only humbled should any of intelligence have witnessed it.
Quote :
But if you allow people to form small armies, they will start to pull shit instead of killing the worst persons and threats to society and themselves.
Rarely are people allowed to do such things, and when they are, you can be sure that all the shit they pull is due to the direct or indirect control of those who are actually in power.
Quote :
This stems from one of my visions of a different kind of species and how they operate. What works for them wouldn't work for humans. A hell of a lot of good things don't work well for humanity due to the deep seeded madness of humans in general.
All those of vision - those who see more than most, still must realize that their visions are derived from a source. If you suspect an abstract source far back, it still must go through you, a specific human, with a specific nature.
-Is the association of a word, and the concept it represents, with an emotion - through repetition and training - a good way of reducing the concept to an instinctual, automatic response, to a verbal or visual stimuli? How are we free-thinkers, and free from prejudice, when at the sound of a word, referring to a concept, an event, a figure, which we have little or no understanding of, we (re)act in a way which we cannot explain?
In the more unstructured 'free-form' modern poetry, maybe it's presumptuous to even bother to rank such writing in terms of better and worse, or even bad and worse, but assuming there is qualitative differences in it worth mentioning, it seems that the best should be defined as that which provokes the most emotions in the average modern person, through words, phrases, and various plays on loose structure and timing.
Clearly most of such poetry is written by those who are nearly as lost in the words they write as the average readers are. But, speaking to one who learned to see farther and define their words; would that person lack the ability to get into the frame of mind necessary for writing such poetry or would such a person possibly be able, should he find the rare motive, to write such poetry in a way that far surpasses most others?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You are burdened with the idea that art must be popular, or marketable to the average, reducing its quality to a level where the many can relate and so can purchase and appreciate it.
For me, art is emant to ascend, to raise, to inspire upwards, not to feed the mediocre.
The practice of implying without understanding, allowing the other, the observer, to read whatever it projects on the symbol, is easy. It is popular because it is open to any interpretation. The artist uses words, rhythms, images, rhymes, to direct a sensation, leaving the feeling other to elucidate it and to believe that ti was intentional or only meant for him/her.
This is so easy that it is the most popular.
More difficult it is to challenge the observer, to lift him out of his own mediocrity. Difficult because the arts must be aware, intentional, willful and superior to his audience, in the areas he is challenging them in.
The philosopher, like the artist, speaks over the heads of the many. He thinks, creates for his own kind. If, incidentally, this nurtures something in a few of the average, then this is coincidental.
Perhaps as one takes one step past the mediocre, he can write slightly above average poetry, in guise being the familiar chaotic display of emotion, yet just asking the reader to look a little beyond his preconceptions.
The problem here, similar to other issues related to one who may be improving, is to balance the new realization of the lack of worth in his current words - emphasizing silence, and his desire to communicate.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Right. To know oneself, taking the flattering with the unflattering, is difficult.
Here's a comparison to illustrate the problem:
Take one person, healthy, but near the lowest nature for those of the human breeding type, who is educated to the best of his abilities from an early age. Truly, to the best of his abilities, meaning his teachers understood his limits, and didn't compel him to take undue shortcuts to make up for his shortcomings.
Then the opposite scenario; one of high birth, but educated as a modern. Later in life he's exposed to higher ideas. He tries to grasp what it means to know himself without bias, and perhaps succeeds in understand his lacking education, but is never put to the more difficult test of the realization of a low birth.
Back to the former person. Knowing as well as his primitive mind can grasp that he's of low birth, he also has had the imperative, know oneself, taught to him as well as possible. Then to leave his comfortable world of education and be exposed to people of far higher natures them him, but retarded. For him to remain objective, with this stark hypocrisy surrounding him seems unlikely. Despite his education he may be easily acceptable to flattering lies.
The question is; how could he not? Despite being as noble as is possible for one of his nature, how could he accept himself in those conditions?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
He would be best to find if his circumstances are tolerable for him. Being he can't change his nature, he still may be able to make the choice to move away from those who tax his ability to avoid fantastical delusions more than he can handle or at least find a way to sufficiently ignore them.
But, I believe you answered my question as to his ability to accept himself despite it being less than he might hope. As one of noble education, he would already know that hope and other expectations are to be kept to a minimum, being they are a form of weakness. He wouldn't set up an idol of perfection which he must despair at never being able to meet, in fact he would know that it would be useless to try to create a broad, seemingly all encompassing theme of how he relates to other people, their world and the world of nature.
Speaking of words and how they create reactions. The following words "popular, populist, marketable" create a reaction in me best described as that which I deem myself as not concerned with. I've even been in long discussions lately on why one shouldn't concern himself with such things. But, the fact is that in that I still see pride as something that must be based on a comparison to others, even if that comparison is supposedly not to be made know to any others, I still am burdened with those ideas.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Speaking of words and how they create reactions. The following words "popular, populist, marketable" create a reaction in me best described as that which I deem myself as not concerned with. I've even been in long discussions lately on why one shouldn't concern himself with such things.
All words describing a need to be liked, appreciated, accepted. Accentuating the "positive", in relation to other(s), masking the "negative", constructing a hypothetical ideal in relation to a present need; focusing mind upon object/objective, into a want, a desire.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Just to clarify, for one to consider himself genetic filth, even if to many (or even most) his genes are of the blackest most decadent kind, is a sign that he's mentally stunted and emotionally retarded?
In other words, even creatures such as flightless birds, blind river dolphins, sewer rats and domesticated stock (human or otherwise) are fully what they would hope to be - genetically anyway?
If so, is it correct to say that to self-righteously claim to be of the most suitable blood, is a sign of some mental/emotional growth, so long as it isn't followed by deceptions or half-truths as to why that is so?
Also, pertaining to the above paragraph, perhaps "superior" would work as well as "suitable". For example, if one is a genetic parasite to an obviously more advanced host, then it would be erroneous of them to consider themselves genetically superior, only genetically suitable, but wouldn't any independent form of creature just as well relish in the conclusion of its own superiority?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
None but the most self-hating, would call themselves "genetic filth". It is why the idea of it, the hint at it, is so deplorable, so easily rejected by the majority who think the opposite of themselves.
If plastic were to become conscious it would not call itself pollution, but useful, and natural, and necessary.
Pollution is an allusion to the consequences of human meddling which are unforeseen and that then demand more meddling to deal with their effects. It's a compounding of the outcomes of human intervention which man rejects as "pessimistic" or "negative"...choosing to focus only of the "positive" the benefits without the costs.
We see it in regards to feminine emancipation, or race mixing. It's always a win<>win situation for the modern.
Like superfluousness, an excess in nutritional ease, resulting in obesity but never foreseen, because the mind, evolved in austerity, only considers the benefits, the pleasure of it - pleasure in fulfilling a need which has evolved in austere, threatening, impoverished environments.
With the liberation of women from the masculine middle-man, proxy...also always perceived as a benefit with no, or with minimal, costs. Tell a feminist that her liberty comes at the price of no families and lost children, necessitating the reinvention of the concept of family. Tell them what cost the eradication of masculinity will have, when all they can think of are the benefits.
Tell a buffoon, liberal, that race mixing and this coming beige humanity will be a degradation of all the mutations that evolved in austere environments...that diluting gold in feces does not produce a higher grade of mineral.
So, all born in a world where monogamy is fact, reproduction a "right", and all ailments are protected from themselves - were the Spartans monsters because they killed their deformed children? - are pollutants...mutations that can only function within manmade environments; untested outside human intervening technologies. Technologies, and techniques, given to them...learned, parroted, imitated.
I'm confused on the issue of and masculine and feminize nihilism.
To start explaining where my confusion comes from, I'll explain masculinity and femininity as I understand it, then nihilism as I understand it and how it relates to males and females and the masculine and feminine mind.
----------
Life is a fight against entropy, so for time in one's life to be seen as going in one direction, then entropy must always increase with time, meaning in the past there will have always been less entropy and in the future there will always be more.
Both males and females share the desire to fight entropy, and in time to help fight entropy for those they care about. The becoming of an ordered being amidst chaos, is distinguishing.
Males are the naturally disposable gender, because few males are able to procreate with all the females. So the males who have yet to procreate, have a much greater impetus for a high degree of personal distinguishment. This can be done within a cultural system, but such male are always only using the system for their distinguishment, and the more masculine of males will never hesitate to go outside the system or disrupt the system should it help them with their distinguishing.
For a female, their will always be males available so personal distinguishment is less of a priority.
Neither gender changes their genetics through personal distinguishment. For both, part of the act of distinguishing is only about appearances, where pretense are fine so long as they're not transparent to others.
Physical appearance is easier to falsify than other factors such as physical fitness, mental fitness, and social status. Being that males are generally the ones expected to rule and protect a social group, the male not only has an overall greater impetus to distinguish himself, but must place a much greater impetus on showing abilities to lead and protect.
A female, having much less of a burden of personal distinguishment, is allowed to focus on the distinguishment of what she cares about, her children, or future children, for which she will almost certainly be far more burdened with than the male.
She naturally looks to who would protect her children, and therefore would never disrupt the social group she's part of. She wishes to integrate herself into the strongest one possible, assuming she has a choice on that matter, then she wishes to become as thoroughly integrated as possible and then before having children or when not directly looking after them, she wishes to help strengthen that group.
It is a sign of nobility for males and females to look to the past for knowledge, without assuming there will be absolute knowledge there, and to look to the future with that knowledge in mind, to continue distinguishing what they place importance on, realizing that no matter how successful it all will still eventually fall to entropy. Because a female is more inclined to integrate into a group (which is an already-ordered-entity) she'll be more somewhat inclined to look to the past than the male.
----------
Nihilism may simply be any form of a rejection of reality. One who understands the flux/flow of being/time, may still be delusional with fantasies, which they are allowed to sustain because known or unknown forces are protecting them from the consequences of their fantasies. Though, a common form of nihilism (which often very integral to the creation of fantasies) is the belief in absolutes, which is the rejection of the flux/flow of being/time.
There's two forms of absolutes, which essentially equate to the end of possibility; absolute chaos and absolute order.
My confusion applies to how those two forms relate to males, females, or more specifically either gender with a more feminize or masculine mentality. Furthermore, my confusion relates to how those terms are best characterized by being masculine or feminize.
It seems masculine nihilism is towards order and feminine nihilism is towards chaos - because creation is masculine, integration is feminine.
But, in practice a masculine mind will under certain circumstances as explained earlier, wish to work towards chaos, and so if nihilistic, he will work towards absolute chaos for all but himself, essentially, so that he may become the one absolute ordered entity, hence the most powerful. Basically, he works towards chaos as needed, then works towards his own ordering to an absolute state (being God) not necessarily the ordering of reality itself towards an absolute state.
A feminine mind seemingly will always work towards order, just not her own order, but that of the group. But, being uncreative will embrace nature.
Females being less distinguished are attractive to highly distinguished males, and so if nihilistic, attracted to the idea of absolute order. Seemingly contradictorily, absolute chaos is the absolute order, because nature is naturally inclined towards entropy. (This is issue is especially confusing.)
Males, if having become highly distinguished, are attracted to the chaotic undistinguished aspects of females, and so if they're nihilists, then it would seem they would not only have times when they would work towards absolute chaos, but be attracted to absolute chaos - or so that's where the logic seems to lead.
To summarize:
Nature, as in the past, is ordered, it's what is becoming less so due to entropy. The feminize mind being uncreative is like this (one with nature), but is not attracted to this attribute in males.
The masculine mind is against nature; against its disordering, and is ordering and creative. Its attracted to the disordering female, but is also attracted to disorder in itself, so as to become the dominate ordering (this is also a very confusing part.)
----------
Here are several key quotes that contributed to my understanding of nihilism, and also to some extent confusion.
Satyr wrote:
The male must be an outsider so as to hope to dominate. You cannot expect to control what you are controlled by, and you cannot expect to govern what you have submitted to.
Just as consciousness is a part of a whole observing itself, separating and distancing, so as to perceive and clarify by discriminating, so too is man a resisting entity towards what is – a rejection so as to see, know and then, hopefully, rule over. From a metaphysical perspective what is being rejected and denied authority is entropy, to which life, and especially the male type, stands in opposition, as the negating of negation – ordering within disordering.
The movement may appear to be away from nothingness, the absolute nil (emptiness, nihilism), and towards somethingness, the absolute thing(God, Man, Ideal), but this is a mistake. When both the concepts of nothing and something are but variation of the concept of an Absolute, or that which does not exist, the absent and the, oftentimes, desirable inert state of completion, then the masculine rejection is of this non-existent ideal state. It is a resistance to non-existence (death, stagnation) and a life-affirming preference for the turmoil and uncertainty of a universe in flux – the very essence of existence. The masculine mind opposes the One, uniformity, the return to the proverbial core, and chooses multiplicity as what makes consciousness and life possible and necessary; he embraces need/suffering as the inevitable price of awareness.
Self-consciousness is a further sophistication of a living organism. It is a part of consciousness becoming aware of itself. So, self-consciousness is a part of consciousness which, in turn, is a part of reality turning in on itself. This is another way towards Being...or towards absolute order: God.
(a) It does not matter what word you use to describe the absolute since its defining characteristic is its very absence. It is this absence that lends itself to any description and any projection; it is a tool which if taken literally becomes a religious icon or a comforting end. The desire to merge with (feminine) or to attain (masculine) this absolute is what nihilism is all about.
Quote :
This willful movement towards the absent absolute, or any indication of it, is what has been described as a Will to Life - Will to Power - Will to Knowledge - Will to God etc. It is a resistance to entropy and a rejection of the Flow/Flux. It constitutes, if taken to an extreme, the masculine polarity of nihilism.
Quote :
Nihilism: the term defines a total and absolute rejection of reality, the world, nature. It is based on binary logic: all or nothing. If not God then Nil. If not perfection then destruction. This either/or attitude is quintessentially nihilistic. Nihilism can have, for this reason, two forms: positive (masculine) and negative (feminine)
(a) The most well known form of nihilism is the feminine form. It is the most seductive and duplicitous. It pretends to be 'positive' when it proposes the negation of all perception, reality, consciousness. This form of self-denouncing world-denying self-hatred proposes a surrender to the Fluidity of nature....towards the absolute void. It's ideal state is an immersion in emptiness; to be lost in a no-thing. Because entropy increases naturally, with no effort required, this form of surrender is feminine because the female psyche always gives into the most powerful entity Furthermore, given that females are a personification of nature the affinity of woman to increasing entropy is part of her psychology. This is why any indication of order, the absolute form being God (absolute masculinity) is irresistible to her.
(b) The masculine form of nihilism is that of God i.e absolute order: omnipotence/omniscience. Here nature is not surrendered to but totally denied, rejected....destroyed. this type tries to release himself form the constraints of nature and this insufferable tendency towards disordering (mortality). It manifests as a misogynistic self-hatred, given that the feminine is also part of all biologically masculine emergent unities. The projected goal here (object/objective) is absolute order...or a singular state of inertia: absolute mass....the occupation of all possibilities (space) simultaneously (omnipresence) - the end of time (timelessness). Of course this totalitarian state necessitates the elimination of all other masculine energies: ergo states impose feminization as a matter of survival and internal stability. This is a tendency towards the absolute which can never be defined since it is absent...therefore it is always a some-thing. The "some" aspect of the concept is where the masculine competition takes place: ideologies, ideas, memes, genes etc. To the no-thing it presents a hope: a some-thing, where thingness is presupposed as either already existing and awaiting discovery (feminine) or as under construction and so yet to be determined and defined...being created (masculine).
(c) These are two forms of human dissatisfaction. They are produced by binary logic (dualism) and manifest into two specialized forms of reproduction. Reproduction is a kind of answer to mortality...ergo the act of procreation is linked to creativity and it represents the masculine aspect of human nature, in both females and males. Ergo, even in females it is the male hormone testosterone which regulates sexual drive (libido).
(d) Politics: In political discourse these two attitudes manifest in two opposing political world-views: Right (masculine) - Tending towards totalitarianism, authoritarianism, order, discipline, respect. Left (feminine) - Tending towards anarchy, tolerance, indiscipline, disrespect. Of course, just as with human beings, no absolute state of either is ever achieved and so all applications of political ideology is a combination of the two to varying degrees; titter-tottering in the in-between (mediocrity). This tendency towards balance is also never established given that the world is in Flux and veering towards increasing entropy (disordering, negative). For this reason all human political systems are in one form or another authoritarian for a system is a masculine invention and it assumes masculine roles. All Ideals, on both the Right and the Left are masculine creations. They propose an order, even if this order is self-annulling and self-despising, and narcissistic escapism. The level of uncontrolled femininity found in a masculine mind determines the slant of his political affiliations.
(e) The Left always proposes a Utopian (selective, compartmentalized, schizophrenic) absence of distinctions. The goal is to create the coming absolute chaos selectively, and hypocritically. They sell chaos as a "freedom", so as to make the masses more managable. It is an internal control method, promoted, ironically, by masculine minds; a castration system saving the dominant male the trouble of fighting off competitors.
(f) Anarchy: The reason why males are attracted to the feminine political extreme of anarchy is because there they assume that they can dominate, establishing in the absence of all authority, their own order. Their masculinity is attracted to the feminine nature, awaiting their dominion. It is usually professed as a preferred state by those males who feel the most repressed sexually or those who have been the most emasculated. So, while females are seduced by any semblance of order superior to their own a masculine spirit is seduced by any feminine disorder superior to their won. Therefore capitalism in its extreme is a kind of economic anarchy, worshiped by those males who are the least economically viable, whereas those with economic clout preach capitalism but practice a control over economic affairs. There has never been an application of a purely capitalistic system, no more than there has there ever existed a purely communist system. The attack on governmental control, conducted by conservatives, is meant for public consumption where, in fact, government is supported in its control over human affairs. By doing so the democratic ideal is diminished as it makes those who would most benefit by participating in public affairs and by voting antagonistic towards the very medium through which their feeble power has any relevance. After all, government is “by the people for the people” in theory, but by making individual paranoid about government this theory is never put into practice, allowing those with the means to influence and to direct the governing body with bribes and back-room agreements. This has reached the peak of effectiveness in the United States. The method of “divide and conquer” is utilized on a psychological level. The ideal of anarchy is promotes as a counter-cultural ideal, manipulating masculine egotism and, in this way, widening the natural rift between the individual male and those males in the same ‘social boat’ as he is. Anarchy disables any organized resistance comparable to the system’s and so it renders it impotent; a display of ineffectual masculinity screaming and biting but not really doing any harm. As a representation of the extreme left the feminine qualities of submission are ensured.
Quote :
Nihilism: The psychological disposition which negates the real because it is incapable of adapting, coping, or accepting it. The absence of universal morals, a meaning, is not a nullification of the given, but a reaffirmation of its fact. It is, in fact, positive, for it is full of possibility, whereas the projection of absolutes constitute a limit upon human (inter)actions, or impose upon him a goal, a behaviour, an attitude, which he must abide by. The absence of meaning and an end, is the epitome of positivity, as it is what creation, creativity is rooted in. The modern association of the negative with what is missing and is needed by man, has raised self-interest, and narcissism, to the level of a universal truth. There is no bigger narcissist than a christian who thinks he deserves a God to watch over him and who thinks his life is worth preserving for eternity. The secular version of this same nihilistic dis-ease, assumes that the universe owes him something, that it must provide it to him, for no apparent reason other than that he was born. Finding that this is not the case the modern nihilist labels this absence a "negative", in an act of arrogance and hypocrisy, as he also pretends humility (as with Christianity), which cannot be matched by any honest mind.
This reversal of definitions where the standard is human need, and fear, though both are rejected and dismissed, projected upon the other, is a central theme with modern nihilists. In all cases an underlying dualism offers the illusion of opposites, when, in fact, both participate in the world-view of negation of what is. Good/Bad, Positive/Negative, Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative, 1/0 etc. Both sides of the simple, binary, dualistic, spectrum are dominated by the projected absolute {1<>0}, making both variants of the same nihilism, expressing itself as an antagonism. This is why the terms are interchangeable, detached as they are from the perceived, and this is why the modern nihilist can use perspectivism and relativity to avoid value judgments (superior/inferior), finding equality in the negative (absence of an absolute), the nil, or in the projected absolute, the ONE.
1- A term appropriated by modern man to define a universe void of purpose, teleos, meaning or universal moral standards.
2- It's more precise usage would be as the rejection, denial, of reality. If reality is void on purpose meaning, and morality, outside of the human brain, then Nihilism is the imposition of purpose, meaning, moral universals, negating their absence. The word 'nihilism' in true nihilistic style, has been reversed in application, presenting a reality where no absolutes are present, in other words the perceived world, as the negative, rather than the positive.
3- Psychological attitude rejecting nature (past), existence as void of meaning, purpose, universal morality, a teleos, and reality, in general, as that which confronts it and threatens/challenges it.
4- Spiritual Nihilism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, New Age Humanism in the west. Buddhism (modern, westernized variant) in the east. Political Nihilism: Marxism, Zionism, Egalitarianism, Feminism/MRA (also a cultural expression). Cultural Nihilism: Feminism/MRA, Modernity, Secular Humanism.
What you are describing, using your own terminology, is what I call nihilism (the masculine form of it): the detachment of man from the past/nature, and the projection into the future of an idea(l) which is becoming detached from reality, from past/nature.
This detachment, this rift, is what the Daemonic bridges. It is the Hellenic ascetic balance = pan metron ariston.
I've explained elsewhere why and how I differentiate between masculine and feminine nihilism, and how they correspond to the human psyche which is built on sexual specialization. It, also, corresponds to positive/negative, or 1/0 binary logic, where both absolutes are not actual but projections.
In brief...
One, attractive to feminine psychology - positive, or 'happy', nihilism, the promise/hope, Utopia/Paradise, God, singularity, Utopia etc. Projection into the past...nature.... Nil, attractive to masculine psychology - negative, or true nihilism, the promise of chaos, anarchy, destruction, emptiness etc. Projection into the future....progressiveness, liberalism, modernity...
Both represent an end to existence, if taken literally.
It is an anthropomorphic fallacy to engender objective noumenon. Satyr is over extending himself when he speaks about "male" and "female" nihilism.
There is only nihilism and self-hatred. However males and females express this resentiment in different ways. That is the most appropriate designation of the term.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Psychological disposition, determined by sexual specialization.
Yes, the irony of life is that it must resist entropy, detach itself, to a degree, for life, and consciousness to become possible. The masculine is the psychology of resistance, as testosterone is what manifests as the desire to fornicate - the automatic, organic, behavior of life-affirmation.
Both feminine and masculine coexists within each organism. Which one dominates is determined first, by sexual specialization, and how this has been produced in the specific organism - mutations, sexual dysfunctions, due to hormonal imbalances during gestation, nurturing...but also by circumstances. just as a beta wolf in order to survive within a pack experiences a testosterone decrease, such circumstances may determine to what degree the specific organism's potential will be permitted to express itself to its fullest.
The beta-male, for example, will desire a towards chaos, due to its emasculated state, only if the testosterone dominates in him to a degree where his submission is a ploy to bring about the circumstances where it can in its mind, attain its fullest potential - in other words where its masculinity is repressed, and it seeks a avenue to express it freely.
Essentially both females and males are attracted to order...since both are variants of the same organic self-ordering. The male/female division expresses itself in the manner to which this ordering will be maintained and enhanced The male predisposition is by using others as its means - will to power, Godliness. The female predisposition is to become an other's means - to become part of another's will to power; power via a proxy, to be with God, and/or a part of Him.
With nihilism this tendency expresses itself in this manner, if we keep in mind that with the nihilistic psychology one is not satisfied with a towards, but with the attainment of the projected end The END is the desired. Now, the projected idea(l) is not a tool, a symbol, of orientation, but a literal cessation of becoming in an absolute final END.
All that confronts the organism to attain this desired end is deemed a negative. Everything that fragments and challenges the attainability of this END, this Absolute finality, unity, is considered a negative. Therefore the very idea of species, of superior/inferior, of male/female, or any category that divides and hints as multiplicity, is a negation of the desired absoluteness of God, or in secular humanist contexts the ideal.
What must be preserves is the unity, the oneness, the whole... It is no longer a human method, but a literal end, that contradicts reality with its singularity - the noumenon contradicting the phenomenon.
In female psychologies, or beta-male psychologies, as a ploy, Chaos hints at a coming uniformity, a unity of no-thing...emptiness in Buddhism terminology. The finality of NIL. Since a female surrenders to power there is nothing, no masculine ordering, that can challenge the towards entropy. But, at the same time a female is nan organism attracted to order, needing order, being seduced by order.
This is where females find males both attractive and ridiculous. Each time they surrender to the promise, and are disappointed. Depending on the female's own quality of mind, her specific psychology and awareness, a man is both admirable, a warrior fighting in a lost cause, and a child, resisting what is too powerful to be stopped. She has already surrender to power, and only indulges her biology, her organic needs, her ordering, by taking a chance on any masculine ideal that promises a superior resistance, a temporal longevity.
In simpler females this is expressed as an attraction to mind/body symmetry: intelligence, physical form, humor, confidence, indifference etc.
The emasculated beta-male is also attracted to chaos, his feminine side, but only because he cannot deal with the masculine entity that dominates. For him the chaos is his only hope to sweep that power away, leaving a void - he imagines - where he can stake his own claim.
It's why we find MRA and Feminism in agreement, and both anti-Paternalism, tradition, biological hierarchies, organic superior/inferior, albeit for different reasons.
Male Nihilism by striving towards absolute completion in Being, in Godliness, is also striving towards his own end. An end where he IS the singularity....and not merely a part of it.
This is why in Hellenism the masculine/feminine are in harmony, in balance, where one dominates in the specific organism due to the role it evolved to serve. Not towards a completion, but in the exaltation of life, the enjoyment of the existing in entropy. No resentiment in the realization that the fight will inevitably end in fragmentation, in entropy sweeping whatever order arises away. There is no desire to end it, to attain absolution....but it is embracing one's nature, as an ephemeral organizing attaining heights and lows, superior and inferior states.
And so there is no hate for the inferior, for the virus, for the Semite, the Negro....but only for the lie that covers the world with a delusional positive nihilistic message.
Remember, in Greek aletheia (αλήθεια) is a-letheia, un-forgetting, uncovering...
The enemy is not life, reality, with its indifferent injustices, but humans who sell lies to morons to control them, creating a false human reality that is consonantly contradicted by reality. To deal with these contradictions word-games, and many other methods are used (narcotics, religion, ideal, education, inebriation and so on)
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
All life a self-organizing in the entropy - resistant, rejecting, entropy. Nihilism is a first stage, as the negation of otherness to make life and consciousness possible. Identity is built on a negation - I am what I am not. Pleasure is a negation of suffering/pain - a degree of need.
Female = seduced by power or the promise of its completion. Male = seduced by chaos as the field where he can build his order.
Entropy happens whether we will it or not. Ordering requires a willing to persist. It requires no effort to increase, but is the byproduct of patterns of flow, and randomness, (inter)acting. the friction produced by this (inter)activity increases entropy.
Females give themselves to power. If they are smart enough, they become cynical. The futility of ordering within the disordering makes them prone to surrender to supernatural masculinity, or some Utopian ideal - they lose respect for biological males. These males cannot give them the absolute safety, belonging, Being, they crave. To comfort themselves they imagine that either entropy is a fallacy or that it leads towards a "higher" form of order - towards God via death is a good example.
Particularly in modern systems where males are further diminished and emasculated by institutional masculinity, a female easily surrenders to institutional promises of a better tomorrow.
Ask McMiserable, that pure nihilistic wretch, if he thinks I'm a pessimist. Remember that freak? He showed up on ILP - where else ? - recently...and no he still contradicts himself by fighting to stay alive. But liberal twats, no matter what flavour they come in (chocolate or vanilla) share this hypocritical word-play, attitude, with no substance.
In his gloomy eyes, I'm an optimist or naive. In my realism he perceived hypocrisy because he could not understand how I can agree with him, on so much, and still love life, and still claim that life is valuable, wonderful, and worth preserving.
I've talked about the masculine and the feminine forms of nihilism, as I perceive them.
The most popular is the feminine form. It pretends to be positive, life-embracing, yet every single one of its principles, beliefs, ideals is a contradiction to the real, the natural, the world. They hide their self-contempt, their loathing of existence, beneath words...the book of revelation, the scripture, the text. They invent realities using words, and then place it over the world itself...calling this "positive", or progressive.
The least popular one is the one McMiserable represented perfectly (I gave him that title and he used it upon his "return" - I doubt he was ever gone): The masculine, pure, honest, self-loathing, world-denouncing, existence despising, type.
