Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 

 Normative differences

View previous topic View next topic Go down 


Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2478
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Normative differences Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:17 pm

Sloterdijk on normative differences.

''Cultures: human behaviour capabilities subdivided into polarized classes.

The ascetic cultures know the normative difference between perfect and imperfect, the religious cultures between sacred and profane,
the aristocratic cultures between highborn and ordinary / average, the military cultures between brave and cowardly,
the political cultures between powerful and powerless, the administrative cultures between superior and subordinate,
the athletic cultures between excellence and mediocrity, the economic cultures between abundance and lack,
the cognitive cultures between knowledge and ignorance, the wisdom cultures between enlightened and blindness.

What these distinctions without exceptions have in common, is the preference for the first value, which applies in the corresponding field as attractor,
while the second pole is always the function value of rejection or as avoidance variable.''

Dual thoughts:

Good & Evil,
Normal & Abnormal,
Moral & Immoral,

Positive & Negative.

A sheep being killed and eaten by a lion - it is positive for the lion, negative for the sheep.
A sheep escaping the lion claws - the lion will starve and the sheep will live.
Each positive has its negative.

Normative differences in each society:

Artistic: Aesthetic & Ugly
Medical: Healthy & Sick,
Christian: Pious (like a angel) & Rebellious (like a devil),
Hedonistic: Pleasure & Boredom,
Marxist / Egalitarian: Equal & Misshapen...

Etcetera, etcetera.

Normative judgments and specializations used to be based upon genetic biological and psychological, average differences between genders, races, classes and circumstances. They were based upon value judgments, comparisons.

Today, due to the inversion of reality (male becomes female, black becomes white, the self-evident a mystery etc.), these normative differences are in today's society, able to survive due to the man-made constructive world, where minds are sheltered from reality and the consequences of certain beliefs.

There always are consequences, it is about the degree.
That which would have you 'normally' excluded from your tribe in any time, any location, or resulted in your death - it is now propagated as ''normal'' or of 'no importance to meddle in'.

The inversion of reality - a good example is today's art:

Beauty, is to an extent, in the eyes of the beholder; but not on average, not as a whole.
Recognition of beauty and ugliness are universal. Such as the depictions of health, natural phenomena, a body developed to its capacity etc., in paintings and statues. And the revulsion for shit, for example, is also applicable in a painting, a photo, a statue: It simply is not beautiful.

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

Within the man-mad(e) world, trained ''thinking'':
Beauty becomes average, boring, ugly.
Ugly becomes beautiful, art, valuable.´╗┐

Originality equals value to the modern mind.

Certain polarized thoughts within the modern culture of no culture:

Tolerant & Homophobe.
Dieverse & White,
One race & Racist,
Open minded & Primitive,
Progressive & Conservative,


It is always about a dual contrast to which one should live up to, and one should avoid the absolute opposite and deem them as an enemy or prevent yourself from thinking certain concepts not in line with the desired norm. Choose between societal acceptance and exclusion, exorcism.

Regarding the Egalitarian ideal..
The dual concept of this ideal, equal and misshapen; they who identify with this ideology still perceive differences and acknowledge them.
But they believe it is all due to oppression and free will that inequality exists. Each person is born according to them, as a tabula rasa, a blank slate.
Only the circumstances regarding economic status, ancestral privileges and elitist exclusion are the factors that makes people inequal and behave in certain ways. Overall, the mind is blank, to be written on by the 'educators'.
Persons who disagree due to life experience, or simply are 'superior' in intellect and understanding have, according to them, chosen to be different and should accept the consequences of societal exclusion or worse.

These Egalitarians desire, through technological compensations and economic theft, to lower the high towards the low.

That which made a human human in the past, was not about 'being' human, only that 'being' was stable regarding genetic capabilities, but a constant becoming. Honour, Chivalry, Self-sacrifice, Self-respect, Knowledge, (Self)-Consciousness, Will to power and moulding yourSelf to an higher capacity, the stone inside of us which calls upon constant cuts, hacks and hammering. Detesting the thought of 'that which I am now, is already good enough, finished'.

Secular-humanists lower eveything to the lowest common denominator.
Something we all share, something which makes us 'human' as a ''singular specie''.
Thus, we are all lowered down to dicks and vaginas, sexual reproduction.
Today, being human is nothing more than being able to have offspring with each other.
The past does not matter anymore, nor does the consequences due to technological compensations and extensions. 'The tool used to be the extension of the person's capabilities, today we are the extension of the tools - men are specialized to use specific tools with no further developments allowed' (Satyr).

Superior and inferior are concepts relative to the time/space one lives in.

An Individual comparison with added circumstances:
A low IQ Pygmy has a higher chance of survival and procreation than a White rocket scientist stranded in his habitat.

We judge the inferiority of an average Sub-Saharan African mainly due to his/her low intellect, low impulse control, higher testosterone quantities etc.
We compare the Sub Saharan populations with the European populations. To our standards they are inferior; not being able for example to build, develop and maintain a community / society - arts, architectural delights, certain music genres, literature. But the judgment of them being inferior as a whole compared to Whites, is a concept constructed by our minds.

To be a human, to us, is more than just being able to have offspring with each other, more than the lowest common denominator.
The standards regarding being judged as a human has developed over time by the Eurasian peoples: Intellectual capacity, empathy, creativity, hormone quantities, altruism. The absence of these characteristics in individuals, or amongst certain breeds on average, are people who are inferior to our standards.

But nature does not care.

Although within the culture of no culture, and the many sub-cultures with their dual concepts on 'right and wrong', 'healthy and sick' have a devastating influence on our perspectives; the value of a person is mainly judged by his or her impotent 'potential' regarding educational filtering and economic usability.

Rebelliousness such as thinking out of the time/space borders, and in this time, this space; being conscious thus discriminating, detesting biological sickness and being independent from for example the state, the economic world, governmental food supplies etc., is regarded as worthless to the system and society, non-integratable into the trained, collective hive mind and living standards of desired 'normality'.

Today's norms and values are the overarching safety sphere of modern comfort; stability..
Try to break down this comfort, this order, and see what kind of reaction you will get of the hive minds.
The state won't need to act against these ''sick'' individuals directly, but let the social pressure, the public opinion, moulded by the media and educational filtering system, do its work.

Shaming, slandering and guilt.
The super-ego will absorb the ego..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Libidino, impulsive, short sighted, immediate gratification, basic needs present from birth.
Ego: Sense of self, consciousness, past awareness, far sighted (patterns / forethoughtful).
Super-ego: More organisms than yourSelf, altruism, self-less-ness for selfish reasons, authority / religion / ideology / state / God / super-organism; rules.

The ego is an intermediate between the id and the super-ego; it has to make compromises between the two.
Hence we follow the rules of today's society, in public at least, even though we might not agree with them.

Awaiting the temporal anarchy..
Back to top Go down
View user profile

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1055
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Normative differences Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:39 pm

In Defense of Tradition

Tradition is valuable to follow and consider because it holds the wisdom of our ancestors. When there are traditions we do not understand, we are taking a risk when we ignore them to accommodate an easier, less tumultuous path. The disregarding of tradition risks that we are ignoring either a gut/instinctual reaction (or pointless myth) by our ancestors or we are ignoring a real wisdom which they had practical reasons for advocating/passing on. That isn't to say that we shouldn't question those traditions, but we should be more careful to just throw them away because today we perceive them as unfair, or unjust.

If washing hands or brushing teeth, for example (hypothetically), was perceived as a burden which we had no evidence/justification for disregarding or ceasing it as a practice, but we ceased to anyway out of laziness because it imposed an unfair and unproven burden upon our lives, there would be some horrible consequences for it (especially today). And, without a respect for tradition, we should expect ourselves to default to attempting to rid ourselves of that burden. Traditions do come at a cost of time. [This is why rebellious spiritedness is valuable. Its a social culling mechanism that tests the value of what one's taught] That would be our perceived path of least resistance: it is easier to destroy than build and the destruction of expectations would free us of future burdens. When those challenges rely on emotionality and not reason, then a rational response is to leave those cultural norms in place until there's evidence they're untruthful or irrelevant. [Note: today all culture is excused as simply a collection of unique and quirky prejudices, adapted not for practicality but as fun experiences for a populace. This is an insult not only to your intelligence, but that of your ancestors. Now it has even gone after sovereignty and nations, being perceived as such frivolities.]

Some traditions are harmless and celebratory in nature and some impose a real burden upon us. However, until one has proven tradition wrong, it is preferable to listen to its wisdom.. lest you mistakenly make yourself and your community ill in the future because you felt rebellious or you felt the practice was "unfair". "Unfair" or "unjust" includes being so towards some other person when tradition demands you treat them differently.

For example: homosexuality. Tradition has professed a rejection of it socially and culturally. What evidence has there been that one shouldn't continue to reject it? If it is only a feeling that it is "unfair" or "unjust", then I have the same argument for you that I had proposed about washing hands. You may argue that there is evidence that accepting homosexuality has no affect on most people. Maybe, but do you really know that? Part of today's argument against homophobia is that social and cultural expectations are very real and require serious consideration. With equal respect, then, we should consider the traditions and culture that was handed down to us. When you have no real way of testing the long term cultural and societal effects that accepting homosexuality may cause and no evidence that the cultural effects will be fine but then try to change your culture into accepting it, then you are committing a social experiment that could risk your very society failing and, perhaps, for no good reason at all. You wouldn't know if it had been tried before in other societies because they're no longer around to tell you and warn you one way or another.

Valuing the path of least resistance and your present day emotionality over tradition and culture is not only disrespectful to those who came before you, but you take risks with it. The fight against sentimentality is the outright fight against tradition and culture. Arguments that nationalists are "sentimental" as if it were ignorance is precisely the arrogance behind those who push an ignorance of culture for the sake of "virtue signaling" which is, as Anfang had said before, "a person within a high trust society providing feedback to it." [Paraphrased]. This is also how they acquire status and is, in fact, the easiest way to acquire status within that high trust society. Criticism is a valuable commodity, as it allows that society to prepare and adapt against future consequences.

Last edited by Slaughtz on Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:17 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : Improved readability, added some points such as a musing as to the evolutionary purpose of rebellion)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Normative differences
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

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