Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Encapsulation - Question[s]

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Encapsulation - Question[s] Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:04 pm

Satyr wrote:
(12)
(b)
Morality: A set of rules of conduct (interactivity) meant to facilitate the attainment of an ideal (object/objective).
The motive here is to impose a desirable object/objective upon a wider population group, in this way assimilating the aggregate energies of their combined wills into a communal dogma; a communal Will, which can be controlled and manipulated by those who not only do not buy into the morals they sell but use them to their own advantage.
We might think of it as a singular or a selective elitist Will imposing itself upon multiple wills using a shared emotion or existential need.
I'm seeking clarification on the underlined.

Are you saying a communal will's intended purpose is a means to control / manipulate, or that there's a risk of this happening?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:17 pm

Satyr wrote:
(16)
The SuperOrganism takes on a life of its own, after it is established by organisms.
Individuality is now defined by servitude and productivity (consumerism) and it loses all autonomy.
Individual organisms, humans, are turned into cells in a bigger body.
The struggle now becomes over who shall control the mind of this SuperOrganism.
And what would the SuperOrganism seek, if not the well being of it's parts?

Is each person not system of smaller components? Doesn't each person seek the health of their body? Is not an organism at war with itself doomed?

Can the mind demand the heart not pump, and yet maintain order?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:18 am

Satyr wrote:
(9)
(a)
This is why identity or the sense of self is a negative purpose: I am what I am not, in relation to the perceived other.

Identity is the composition of all awareness.

As one has greater awareness of a particular body, i.e. direct access to thoughts / senses of a body, one can say, 'I am more this, as I've more awareness of it'.

I am defined by what I am aware of. A being, not a lack.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:23 am

Satyr wrote:
(21)
(c)
The underlying question is: Does appearance represent the organism's entire past (genetic and mimetic)?
Does appearance matter, including beauty (symmetry) or any other manifestation of what appears, including shape, smell, form, texture, color, sound and so on?

And what of a person's [re]actions, can these be seen?

Are these not as informative as shape, smell, color etc.?

I see myself in others. Often I feel closer to people who have drastically different shape, smell, color [..] than those with similar.

Satyr wrote:
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...

Given this,

One's values, objectives, beliefs. These are part of our individual being.

These are just as, if not more, relevant to one's identity as their shape, smell, color [..]

[Reference prior post]

As you said, man creates. Thus, the present and future are his interests. The past is a means to inform how to best move forward.
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:34 am

Satyr wrote:
(12)
(b)
Morality: A set of rules of conduct (interactivity) meant to facilitate the attainment of an ideal (object/objective).

In the above context the ideal this conduct is trying to facilitate is one that most of those is the community understand or at least believe in.

Quote :
The motive here is to impose a desirable object/objective upon a wider population group, in this way assimilating the aggregate energies of their combined wills into a communal dogma; a communal Will,

Here the motive is not known by most, a relatively few alpha males of the present or past are or were aware of this motive.

Quote :
which can be controlled and manipulated by those who not only do not buy into the morals they sell but use them to their own advantage.We might think of it as a singular or a selective elitist Will imposing itself upon multiple wills using a shared emotion or existential need.

ben JS wrote:
I'm seeking clarification on the underlined.

Are you saying a communal will's intended purpose is a means to control / manipulate, or that there's a risk of this happening?

It seems he's saying neither. The communal will revolves around the aggregate goals they wish to accomplish. In tribal societies, especially primal ones, these goals are often noble, such as perpetuating their lineage, in part through strengthening themselves in relation to their environment and other tribes. But, here Satyr's speaking to morality in modern nihilistic societies, where the communal will is often that of obtaining fantasies such as a utopia. The modern alpha males often take advantage of the feminized herds cowardice and idiocy.

In the past these ideals were likely, more often than not, spread by alpha males who simply wanted to keep the society they reigned over cohesive. But, over time these ideals no longer needed alpha males to perpetuate them, taking on a life of their own through unconscious memetic reproduction. The present alpha males understanding these memetic forces, manage to obtain power by sidestepping them, while pretending to follow them. Though, it should be noted that some modern alpha males don't take advantage of these morals for personal gain, but actually try to expose them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:38 am

ben JS wrote:
Satyr wrote:
(16)
The SuperOrganism takes on a life of its own, after it is established by organisms.
Individuality is now defined by servitude and productivity (consumerism) and it loses all autonomy.
Individual organisms, humans, are turned into cells in a bigger body.
The struggle now becomes over who shall control the mind of this SuperOrganism.
And what would the SuperOrganism seek, if not the well being of it's parts?

Is each person not system of smaller components? Doesn't each person seek the health of their body? Is not an organism at war with itself doomed?

Can the mind demand the heart not pump, and yet maintain order?
This question seems very naïve. Have you ever gotten a hair cut, shed skin cells, taken antibacterial medicine??
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:04 am

ben JS wrote:
Satyr wrote:
(9)
(a)
This is why identity or the sense of self is a negative purpose: I am what I am not, in relation to the perceived other.

Identity is the composition of all awareness.

As one has greater awareness of a particular body, i.e. direct access to thoughts / senses of a body, one can say, 'I am more this, as I've more awareness of it'.

One can take that route towards establishing identity, I guess, in a protective environment. To see everything in a positive light, and simply rate things according to the level of sensual access you have to them; claiming that what is you is that what is closest you.

But, in an unprotected environment one won't last long with this approach. One must allow themselves to be distinguished, by establishing a hard line between what they are and what they aren't. In doing so, they have developed the necessary basis in knowing what to attempt to assimilated and what not to assimilate (what to eat, for a male who to procreate with, who to raise/mentor) and what to avoid being assimilated by and what to allow to be assimilate by (eaten by, for a female who procreating with, who to be raised/mentored by).

Quote :
I am defined by what I am aware of. A being, not a lack.

You'd like to be a complete being, but because life is a constant state of lack you will never become complete. You can either accept life is lack and courageously continue making the effort at filling it knowing you will never succeed. Or you can delve into fantasy pretending you're already complete and have no need of accurately observing the world, but instead acting impulsively and ill-informed, relying on the institutions/society to protect you from your foolishness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:30 am

ben JS wrote:
Satyr wrote:
(21)
(c)
The underlying question is: Does appearance represent the organism's entire past (genetic and mimetic)?
Does appearance matter, including beauty (symmetry) or any other manifestation of what appears, including shape, smell, form, texture, color, sound and so on?

And what of a person's [re]actions, can these be seen?

Are these not as informative as shape, smell, color etc.?

Usually not, because [re]actions are often based on perceptions in the immediate, perceptions based on shallow nurturing that may easily changed, but physical appearance shows one's nature more directly.

Quote :
I see myself in others. Often I feel closer to people who have drastically different shape, smell, color [..] than those with similar.
The reason for this may be that you're nurturing has taken a shallow cover over you're nature.

Quote :
Satyr wrote:
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...

Given this,

One's values, objectives, beliefs. These are part of our individual being.

These are just as, if not more, relevant to one's identity as their shape, smell, color [..]

You should read the rest more carefully:

Satyr wrote:
...or towards absolute order: God.

...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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:34 am

ben JS wrote:
As you said, man creates. Thus, the present and future are his interests. The past is a means to inform how to best move forward.

Having the ability to move forward, in the sense you speak of, with a decent understanding of one's past, is something that is unlikely for most Moderns. There's more nobility for a Modern in trying to break the spell modernity has over him and spending his entire life searching for his lost past while creating little, than there is for him to trying to take shortcuts in understanding his past, then spending his life ignorantly rehashing the creations of others, while living entirely within the contemporary sphere of thought.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:44 am

Does an apple grow because the tree lacks?
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:30 am

Yes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:39 am

Apples grow from an abundance of nutrients, not a lack.
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:49 am

If one is hungry, then he lacks food, in a certain sense, whether he has a full kitchen or is in middle of a famine.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:18 pm

A fruit is a product of a species', a plant species', reproductive cycle.
Reproduction is a product of excess, as is growth.

Excess is a product of lack, as it is produced by an organism that needs, and that then appropriates energies to self-maintain, to self-organize, within the disorganizing, or the fluctuating.
Lack, sensed as need, with suffering/pain being its extreme, is the sensation of self-organization confronted by fluctuating (inter)activity, tending towards increasing chaos (complexity and randomness); ordering confronted by disordering, or the attempts of other forms of ordering to appropriate the energies already present (appropriated and assimilated) in an organism (organization).
Excess is the product of successful self-organizing, in relation to environment.
This excess can be directed, willfully, towards storage, or towards growth, or towards reproduction
(creation/creativity being a sophistication of the procreative drive, reliant on libidinal excess energies, particularly brain energies, needing release)   

The lack, felt as need, leads to appropriation and assimilation of energies.
This, in turn, and if done effectively and efficiently, results in a libidinal need (sexual need), a desire to expand, create, procreate.
When the first stage is not successful, or barely successful, no second stage ensues; if it does, despite lacking the excess energies required as part of some automatic genetic, process, the results are less than viable (unhealthy, atrophied).

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



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:00 pm

If I understand correctly,

you are saying that lack is the tension between ordering and disordering. That is, that lack exists because an organism (an 'ordering') will succumb to attrition (entropy, even) without a source of energy to sustain it. And if the organism in question is able to secure enough energy it can then divert part of it into things other than self-maintenance. And in this regard, growth occurs because lack drove the organism to acquire surplus energy.

That makes sense.

Can you apply that to entities other than organisms? Or does lack only apply to living things?
For example, a lightning strike. There is no need behind the lightning like there is behind an organism.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:04 pm

MonoExplosion wrote:

That makes sense.
Can you apply that to entities other than organisms? Or does lack only apply to living things?
For example, a lightning strike. There is no need behind the lightning like there is behind an organism.

The concepts of lack, need, fullness, emptiness, value, and so on, only relate to life and to self-organizing phenomena.
All other processes follow a pattern, where accumulation and discharge may take place due to (inter)actions, guided by environmental balances, and following the path-of-least-resistance.

A living organism is a sum of processes that can sense the (inter)activity and cares, is concerned, with its own self-preservation.
Although the path-of-least-resistance still applies, with a will present some form of control and direction is possible.
There is no fullness, or emptiness; no lack, need, or overflowing outside the organic because only the organic constructs a boundary (membrane-skin) to enclose itself, and to separate itself from the world, so as to make willfulness (choice, focus, direction, self-organization, self-maintenance) possible.

It also makes self-ordering within a disordering environment possible.

All we can say about the world (universe, cosmos, reality) is that it is dynamic, that it exhibits fluctuating processes, some of which display patterns (repetitive, predictable, consistency), which are the only parts of reality an organic mind can perceive, and that it is most likely tending towards increasing entropy, which is the only state within which life emerges.
This increase in entropy may be regional, or not, and it may mean an increase in complexity, or it may also include a gradual increase in randomness (chaos)...
I am inclined to believe that both happen.
As fragmentation increases, resulting in complexity, which the human mind understands as chaos, the friction of (inter)activity also produces energies detached from patterns, or randomness (energies interacting with no consistent, predictable, repetitive pattern) which is also understood by the human mind as chaotic.

All else relates to living organisms, which are a part of the world.

Life being a part which, as was noted, that attempts to separate, detach, distance itself, so as to attain self-ordering, and self-maintenance...and willfulness.
Without this detachment consciousness and life, in general, is impossible.
This is the source of idealism versus realism, or subject/object, or all dualism and binary thinking..including linguistic and mathematical abstractions.
It is what the Greeks called agon and we experience as need/suffering.

Electromagnetic forces simply (inter)act along the paths-of-least-resistance, flowing continuously, accumulating and discharging with no intent, but in accordance to a pattern - each form of energy and matter having its own pattern.
These patterns is what the conscious mind interprets as characteristics (color, form, texture, smell, tone and so on)

Life, on the other hand, which includes electromagnetism within its self-organization, is an organization which directs its aggregate energies with intent...towards an object/objective which promises the assimilation of energies it requires to continue to self-organize.
It sense the temporal attrition, this constant (inter)action of processes, only when the effects have accumulated to a level where they require intervention.
This is need/suffering.  
Although the (inter)actions producing this sensation never cease, they go unnoticed because organisms have evolved automatic processes to deal with the continuing requirements of self-organization, and self-maintenance.

Consciousnesses, as we know it, evolves gradually to make the intervention more effective...by preempting the rise of need, and to focus the organism's aggregate energies to make them more efficient in their need to perceive and to appropriate energies.

Once more...
The organism senses this attrition of (inter)activity, and of increasing entropy upon its ordering, as need.
Because it continuously needs to self-preserve and to self-correct, and to fight off threats, its aggregate energies are continuously being lost - it lacks an absolute source of energies...or the absolute is absent altogether.
It is in a perpetual state of lack, as this relates to its own requirements...and this lack, felt as need, can rise to the level of distress, of suffering, pain...anxiety/fear and so on.

Need is the sensation of this absence...and it then projects the absolute as an idea(l) - only true for more sophisticated life forms - which if taken literally as the absent absolute can become God, omnipotence, omniscience...oneness...perfection, order...Being.
The more realistic mind does not project the idea(l), the desirable object/objective as a final end, but as a means to an end...a consistently repeating and forever not absolutely gratified means.
The object/objective is not the destination, the final goal, but the necessary focus so as to continue Becoming.
When an organisms' most immediate and primary needs are met, some metal energies are freed to pursue other object/objectives, satisfying other less pressing needs; and to project broader, more far-reaching, with a deeper perceptual-event-horizon objects/objectives.

The nihilist wishes to stop this Becoming with a final Being, or some other absolute abstraction which it projects in the beyond, the future, because Becoming can only mean more need/suffering.
It is what is the source of what has been called resentment, and what makes nihilism so seductive an idea(l) - no matter what form it takes and what word it uses to describe itself.

Another form of coping, amongst the Moderns - usually of the secular humanist, atheistic bend - is to make the alleviation of need/suffering THE only object/objective, essentially reducing themselves to an animal, state...or a solipsistic, self-referential condition only made viable when there is a sheltering environment to protect and to provide.
This reduction of the projection to the most immediate represents a form of existential fatigue - most often accompanied with cynicism, which dismisses all object/objectives and/or human idea(l)s as equally void of substance.
The unattainably of the idea(l) makes them all equally ridiculous, and valueless, in their psychology...which frees them to pursue the primal with more gusto and less shame.
It's what we call hedonism or materialism.
The making of gratification the only purpose, or object/objective, since it is so intimate and so primal in the human psyche.

The object/objective becomes self-referential, and has no other object/objective outside of this.
The human perceptual-event-horizon shrinks to that of a simpler animal, but it uses more complex concepts and justifications to give it meaning.

Nihilism and Hedonism are, of course and for obvious reasons, more easy to manipulate and to control in large numbers, and so all Modern systems promote them as part of their internal self-organization, as it pertains to SuperOrganisms.


So....two types of need...and we can understand them as a sophistication fo survival strategies...which makes the non-gratification of sex not a death sentence:

Needs expressing organic lack, and its insatiable energy requirements.
Needs as a byproduct of the previous...where success, produces excess which them becoming pressing...in their need to be expended, to be discharged.
The latter presupposes the former; the former does not presuppose the latter.

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



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:04 am

Stuart- wrote:
This question seems very naïve.
Why do you have to start out like that?

Stuart- wrote:
Have you ever gotten a hair cut, shed skin cells, taken antibacterial medicine??
Hair isn't alive.

We shed dead skin cells.

The bacteria we intentionally kill actively work against the health of the our body.

-

But, in context with the SuperOrganism, we couldn't survive if 1% of our body hoarded resources at the expense of 99%.

The system would atrophy into less complexity.

Not sustainable, being my point.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:19 am

Stuart- wrote:
But, in an unprotected environment one won't last long with this approach.
What was necessary in the past, doesn't always remain necessary in the present.

Circumstances change.

Our environment is very protected.

Stuart- wrote:
You'd like to be a complete being, but because life is a constant state of lack you will never become complete.
What is complete to you?

-

I exist.

My awareness is comprised of what I have, not what I'm missing. If I'm hungry, it's not because I lack food, it's because I have a functioning brain.

Existence precedes essence.

Existence by definition, opposes lack.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:27 am

Stuart- wrote:
physical appearance shows one's nature more directly.
Physical appearance shows an aspect, not the complete picture.

Just as actions show an aspect, not a complete picture.

You haven't justified the discrepancy in the weight you give to each side. You seem bias.

What discerns the great men from the average men? Their acts or their appearance?

Stuart- wrote:
shallow cover over you're nature.
All actions are natural because they evolved naturally.

Everything man has built, evolved from a state where all man had was his nature.

Thus the world we live in, reflect different aspects of man's nature.

Stuart- wrote:
You should read the rest more carefully:
The quote didn't relate to my point, so I'll assume my point went over your head.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:35 am

Satyr wrote:
Excess is a product of lack, as it is produced by an organism that needs, and that then appropriates energies to self-maintain, to self-organize, within the disorganizing, or the fluctuating.
Life emerged due to circumstance.

Before life, all was neutral - absent of the bias of the living.

It is only the living that consider their environment in relation to excess and lack.

So if we're going to trace it back, excess is a product of circumstance, or even - inevitability given the abundance of existence.

Why do you focus on the lack?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:05 am

This too has been explained...about a dozen times.

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



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:59 pm

ben JS wrote:
But, in context with the SuperOrganism, we couldn't survive if 1% of our body hoarded resources at the expense of 99%.

The system would atrophy into less complexity.

Not sustainable, being my point.

I don't know if a SuperOrgansim needs to maintain it's level of complexity for the purpose of sustainability.

Anyway, Satyr wasn't implying that it was hoarding in such a manner, how did you come to the conclusion that he was from the below?

Satyr wrote:
(16)
The SuperOrganism takes on a life of its own, after it is established by organisms.
Individuality is now defined by servitude and productivity (consumerism) and it loses all autonomy.
Individual organisms, humans, are turned into cells in a bigger body.
The struggle now becomes over who shall control the mind of this SuperOrganism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:26 am

ben JS wrote:
Stuart- wrote:
But, in an unprotected environment one won't last long with this approach.
What was necessary in the past, doesn't always remain necessary in the present.

Circumstances change.

Our environment is very protected.
Past or present, one determines identity by what one is not. But, yes, one doesn't need an identity to survive in modern times.

Quote :
Stuart- wrote:
You'd like to be a complete being, but because life is a constant state of lack you will never become complete.
What is complete to you?
Nothing. In that I may still be nihilistic in my thinking, I still at times attempt to create a reality that I posit as ideal.
Quote :
I exist.
"Exist" is a verb - an action, so if you're complete then why do anything, including exist?
Quote :
My awareness is comprised of what I have, not what I'm missing. If I'm hungry, it's not because I lack food, it's because I have a functioning brain.

Existence precedes essence.

Existence by definition, opposes lack.
I don't know what you mean by "existence precedes essence", but presumably you don't use the expression as I do, which is to mean that one must create one's own essence, because the act of creating one's essence clearly implies a lack.

Some use the term "existence" to mean an existing absolute, which is nihilistic thinking (denying reality by implying that which does not exist), others use it as a metaphor for what is not existing, the very thing that we strive to find. So, yes, the metaphor of existence implies a fullness for which an organism, one who creates essence, lacks, but existence doesn't oppose lack, it doesn't do anything, it is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:42 am

ben JS wrote:
Stuart- wrote:
physical appearance shows one's nature more directly.
Physical appearance shows an aspect, not the complete picture.

Just as actions show an aspect, not a complete picture.

You haven't justified the discrepancy in the weight you give to each side. You seem bias.

What discerns the great men from the average men? Their acts or their appearance?

Actions are of course only known through what is apparent. If the question is whether you may gain more information from seeing a person face to face for a minute or from a quick account of their actions, then the former is generally the case, even if the account is honest.

Quote :
Stuart- wrote:
shallow cover over you're nature.

All actions are natural because they evolved naturally.

Everything man has built, evolved from a state where all man had was his nature.

Thus the world we live in, reflect different aspects of man's nature.

All men don't share the same nature. Various men, over time, created the artificial environment you now refer to as the world, yet the environment they imposed on others was not even natural to themselves.

Quote :
Stuart- wrote:
You should read the rest more carefully:
The quote didn't relate to my point, so I'll assume my point went over your head.

Even if you use your ideals as tools rather viewing them as absolutes that must be fulfilled, they still aren't as relevant as appearances.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:14 pm

Stuart wrote:
Past or present, one determines identity by what one is not.
One compares alternatives / change.

One must be something, in order to determine what one is different than.

Stuart wrote:
if you're complete then why do anything, including exist?
We're completely determined to exist, and all that comes with it.

There exists pressure - momentum. This forces change.

Stuart wrote:
but existence doesn't oppose lack, it doesn't do anything, it is.
Existence opposes lack thereof.

By logical necessity.

Stuart wrote:
If the question is whether you may gain more information from seeing a person face to face for a minute or from a quick account of their actions, then the former is generally the case, even if the account is honest.
An account of their actions tells quite a bit else than a picture of their face.

Stuart wrote:
All men don't share the same nature. Various men, over time, created the artificial environment you now refer to as the world, yet the environment they imposed on others was not even natural to themselves.
Man is natural, therefore, all man does is natural. Man influences man, therefore, the nature of man is affected by the will of man. Man's will changes, therefore, man's nature changes.

Stuart wrote:
Even if you use your ideals as tools rather viewing them as absolutes that must be fulfilled, they still aren't as relevant as appearances.
Psychological clarity, strength and competency is very relevant to understanding the potential and quality nested within an individual.

Satyr's encapsulation mocks and rejects this 'inner world', and claims outside appearance is the only valid measure of quality.
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:30 pm

ben JS wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Past or present, one determines identity by what one is not.
One compares alternatives / change.

Yes.

Quote :
One must be something, in order to determine what one is different than.

In a sense, of course you're right, one observes oneself just as one observes the world. But, that doesn't establish identity. Take an animal with no sense of identity, it still knows much about its body. To establish an identity one must find what one is not.

This becomes more complex when we consider the dynamic nature of reality. Then even the self which we have identified becomes incomplete.

Looking towards the past, one is what one isn't - this is because the past perception of self is conceived as a whole and the present is in flux and has therefore changed at least somewhat.

Looking towards the future, one isn't what one is - this is because our future perception of self is also conceived as a whole representing what the present dynamic self lacks.

Quote :
Stuart wrote:
if you're complete then why do anything, including exist?
We're completely determined to exist, and all that comes with it.

By whom?

Quote :
There exists pressure - momentum.

(Pressure relates to movement, I'm not certain if momentum is the right word though.)

Quote :
This forces change.

Yes, pressure forces change. Pressure is comparable to lack, because its compels something to be where its not.

Consider air as an analogy for pressure and lack.

A being with no internal air pressure, will be crushed into compact shape - a being that does not lack would be complete or solid, essentially non-existent.

A being with no external air pressure, will expand to the extent that its skin can handle - a being that lacks, hypothetically with no limit to it's completion will continuously grow until it essentially encompasses everything.

Quote :
Stuart wrote:
but existence doesn't oppose lack, it doesn't do anything, it is.
Existence opposes lack thereof.

By logical necessity.

Both the concepts of existence and nothingness are useful metaphors. In actuality there is neither absolute fullness nor absolute emptiness anywhere.

If there was a complete fullness, then I guess we could say that it opposes losing it's completes, because if it did become incomplete it would then lack completeness. But, that's a fiction.

Then to say that all existents together represent what is called existence, and claim that this existence is a complete fullness - opposing change opposing lack, then all the existences within would be complete fullness, therefor life, and all movement and change in general, would be impossible.

Quote :
Stuart wrote:
If the question is whether you may gain more information from seeing a person face to face for a minute or from a quick account of their actions, then the former is generally the case, even if the account is honest.
An account of their actions tells quite a bit else than a picture of their face.

'Else', why didn't you say 'more'? Or perhaps you agree with me.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:11 am

ben JS wrote:

Stuart wrote:
All men don't share the same nature. Various men, over time, created the artificial environment you now refer to as the world, yet the environment they imposed on others was not even natural to themselves.
Man is natural, therefore, all man does is natural. Man influences man, therefore, the nature of man is affected by the will of man. Man's will changes, therefore, man's nature changes.

The nature of man is only affected by the will of man through breeding, meaning either that children inherent the traits that have proven successful from their parents, or in cases of outside intervention, such as through eugenics, children inherent traits from parents chosen through the will of others.

One's will, in itself, is largely derived from one's nature, being that will is a product of desire and one largely desires what is natural to oneself. So while memetic forces do affect will, the average will of man changes very slowly because of how it's tied to nature.

Quote :
Stuart wrote:
Even if you use your ideals as tools rather viewing them as absolutes that must be fulfilled, they still aren't as relevant as appearances.
Psychological clarity, strength and competency is very relevant to understanding the potential and quality nested within an individual.

And the knowledge of such psychological qualities are gained through appearance, meaning through observation. An account of a person's psychology (whether from that person himself, or another) would be far less informative than direct observation. In fact when questioning one's own psychological qualities one can't simply rely on one's opinion, but one has to try to observe oneself from a second person perspective to gain any accuracy.

Quote :
Satyr's encapsulation mocks and rejects this 'inner world',and claims outside appearance is the only valid measure of quality.

By inner world I assume you mean all that encompasses our unspoken thoughts. As with psychological qualities, these thoughts, too, can only be known by observation. So to judge a person's thoughts, one must judge his actions.

Concerning the products of imagination or creativity, Satyr makes it clear that he only rejects them when they're disconnected from reality. One can have a vivid imagination, that helps one in many creative endeavors, which is not something, in itself, he nor I would automatically reject as low quality. It's when one's thoughts are mired in fantasy, based on one's desires and delusions, that they're reprehensible.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
polishyouth

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 147
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Tall grass

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:42 pm

How does intelligence evolve, and why, if it is uniformly distributed within populations, and it does not emerge from the (inter)action of a population with the environment, where genetic isolation is a fact?

I don't understand, could somebody explain?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:00 pm

Maybe you can clear up your own confusion by asking yourself some simple question:

- How does intelligence evolve?
If it is a survival tool then asking how any trait evolves, or how and why a combination of traits offering a specialized focus, and a niche advantage, would evolve.

- What is intelligence?
Is it one or multiple mental traits working in unison.

- If intelligence is a combination of traits that offer the organism a survival advantage why would it be uniformly distributed?
This uniformity would contradict evolution theory where the advantaged organism passes on the genes that offer it the advantage.


Then you can proceed...

- How is a species defined, and how do species splinter off from a common ancestor?

- What trait(s) characterizes the human species?
What sets the human species apart, and offers it such a dominating advantage?

-Why would there be selection or sexual competition and choice if all traits, and their potentials, are uniformly distributed?

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

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 147
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Tall grass

PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s] Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:20 pm

I do now. Thank you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Encapsulation - Question[s]

Back to top Go down
 
Encapsulation - Question[s]
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Question on Lambda symbol for light
» Question re generational curses/ healing prayer
» Question your conduct
» A question for mediums
» CS Professional (New Syllabus) Question Papers

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