My Rev-i of satyr's philosophies

Rev-i Review, revisal, revision, revival

I admire Satyr taking the effort to add a list of definitions to lessen confusion and increase consistency throughout communications. However I often find that he does not always stick to his own definitions. For example, he often uses the word "female" instead of the word "feminine". In this day and age, females can have male levels of testosterone, and males can have female levels of estrogen. In this sense males can act like the female, and females can act like the male, so the word "female" would be a poor choice of words.

The second thing is that I notice with a lot of intellectual types like Satyr is they like to refrain from using common words like "eat" and replace them with something along the lines of words like "consume". Sometimes they do this to sound fancy, sometimes they do this to distance themselves from the essence behind the word. What I want to say is one should focus on the meaning behind the words, not the words themselves. Consider which statement is more expressive and communicative:

"Americans consume government propaganda and lies"

"Americans eat government propaganda and lies"

You see if we use more visceral words, like "eat", rather than "consume", the sensationary experience would be heightened, deepened. Communication would be more effective, it would be also more efficient, since eat is 4 chars smaller. This is because "eat" has very strong associations built up at early ages, and one can almost taste the flavor.

Third thing is although his avatar is cute and funny, and I see it as a way to ironically get back at the ILP tards, it is rather distracting whilst trying to read. First time I saw it I couldn't stop laughing. Also about the words thing, the human brain does function optimally with variation in stimulation, and using the same verbs and adjectives over and over would be dull as well. So you could throw some other variations of words in as well, not just "eat" repeated over and over but maybe "consume" too to add some sensory variation.

Homosexuality I believe that homosexuality is irrelevant. In bee culture you see the majority of the populace are female worker bees who do not reproduce. So not reproducing is not so much an evolutionary dead-end but sometimes a vital function. In this case i'd say it is a beneficial function since humanity is becoming overpopulated and growing exponentially. However, many homosexuals do reproduce, whether through artificial insemination or through natural reproduction, so many are not homosexuals in function, only psychology.

As for pedophilia one must distinguish it from hebephilia, attraction to teenagers. Most men are hebephiles and are attracted to teenage girls. It was evolutionarily advantagous for teenage girls to be attracted to older, wiser men who could keep them safe, and the human lifespan was very fragile living in the wild, so it was unsafe for women to waste time after puberty. the logical course of action was to start the babymaking as soon as they were fertile.

In the other case, hebephiles who are attracted to males, in the case of mj or herbert the pervert, these are often transfemme types who had a rough childhood and were denied the female highschool drama years. So they try to make up for this by romancing teenage boys in the same way a female teenager would. Did mj have sex with the boy, probably not, since penile intercourse would probably disrupt the fantasy. Did they cuddle? Yes.

As for straight up pedophiles (catholic preists, politicians, old men, etc.) i am not really sure of their psychology but i will extrapolate this. Some of them have been raped as children, and many victims of abuse grow up to enjoy the feeling of abuse. Therefore they view it as a good learning experience, so they wish to share it with others. As for the ones who were never abused or touched as children, I really can't say. Probably making up for lost childhood or something, or have some sort of psychological condition where they view their penis as a kind of breast, and semen as milk, and their pedophilia is some kind of twisted paternal or maternal function. This psychological condition is probably unbeknownst to even them.

Memes I see that meme spreading is a very real problem. You see you guys offered some good insight earlier. Unfortunately for the universe, you see unintelligent types cannot breed intelligent memes, because intelligent memes are incompatible, and yet unintelligent memes are compatible with both types. Therefore intelligent memes are a recessive trait. One intelligent meme is "stupid people need to stop reproducing" but since stupid people can't understand this meme, we have runaway population of stupid people, who are usually hated by intellectuals seen as how stupid people like to bully and torment intellectuals.

It was also stated that scientists tend to have a feeble phenotype of the hooked neck dweeb, however this is not necessarily true. Many strong bearded men make good thinkers, and also tallness and bigness also tends to have bigger brains. Taller and bigger people tend to be smarter.

Cremation should be shunned upon by higher levels. Higher levels (scientists, atheletes, etc.) should consider embalming their bodies the standard way so that their DNA may be later used to construct supras. Traits looked for are rational, compassion, hard-working, clever, creative, and always-happy. Googling search for freak-types and "the man who is always happy." (such as a man who is perpetually blissful and was born blissful, a kind of freak.) Could benefit from the freak who can eat tires and planes, hoping that his body is not cremated, would be a loss, could have saved the galaxy.

I do not consider higherlevels anyone who puts value into traditions. For example you might run into a commoner scientist type who says "Using people's DNA after death is wrong, digging up old coffins is wrong." This is not a higher level and a deluded commoner who just happens to dabble in science and knows scientific methods. The only time it would be wrong is if they were adamant about not wanting to be cloned because they were paranoid of reincarnating, and selfishly wanted to end their own cycle of rebirth at the cost of the world benefiting from their DNA. Besides, if the scientists constructed the supras correctly, their next rebirth would be blissful. However scientists are known to make mistakes, from time to time.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Rev-i Review, revisal, revision, revival

I admire Satyr taking the effort to add a list of definitions to lessen confusion and increase consistency throughout communications.

Definitions are how I keep retards from abusing words, like they abuse themselves, and I take away the basic Nihilistic weapon of words disconnected from reality, claiming all kinds of pleasing absurdities.
There's a turd on ILP who places value before judgment, as the Christians place Love before consciousness, and consciousness before life.
For Moderns, Nihilists, morons, words are like toys...legos they can combine in any way that will increase their pleasure.

By connecting words to reality, or noumena with phenomena, the Modern, the nihilist, the common moron, is disarmed.
His "freedom" is this detachment of words from the apparent.
Connecting, referring, noumena with phenomena, is an anathema....for them.

After that all that is left to them is bragging, dismissals, declarative claims, and more word acrobatics.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

However I often find that he does not always stick to his own definitions. For example, he often uses the word "female" instead of the word "feminine". In this day and age, females can have male levels of testosterone, and males can have female levels of estrogen. In this sense males can act like the female, and females can act like the male, so the word "female" would be a poor choice of words.

It is true...keeping the Modern definition separate from my definition, which I consider superior, requires effort.
I would have to provide disclaimers for every sentence I write.
I've tried to remedy this by capitalizing words, such as "Modern" and "Nihilist," to separate my definition from the common, bullshit, one.
The discernment between female and feminine is necessary, as most males, in my feminization context, are feminine in thinking and psychology, and some females are distinctly more masculine than the average Modern "male".
Perhaps I should use a different term, or capitalize it when I use it...but I also enjoy confusing retards, and allowing them to underestimate and dismiss me as another misogynist.
I usually know when someone has not read what I've written, or has not understood it, by how they react to my words.
Having been accused of verbosity, I now prefer laconic non-precise sentences...permitting me to distinguish the swine from the humans.
Why would I polish my pearl for a pig?

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

The second thing is that I notice with a lot of intellectual types like Satyr is they like to refrain from using common words like "eat" and replace them with something along the lines of words like "consume". Sometimes they do this to sound fancy, sometimes they do this to distance themselves from the essence behind the word. What I want to say is one should focus on the meaning behind the words, not the words themselves. Consider which statement is more expressive and communicative:

"Americans consume government propaganda and lies"

"Americans eat government propaganda and lies"

You see if we use more visceral words, like "eat", rather than "consume", the sensationary experience would be heightened, deepened. Communication would be more effective, it would be also more efficient, since eat is 4 chars smaller. This is because "eat" has very strong associations built up at early ages, and one can almost taste the flavor.

I try to use the appropriate term that can include both genetic and memetic feeding.
Consume covers it.
I use eat for the physical, genetic...and learn for the mental...consume covers both.
One consumes food as one consumes data.
One digests food as one understands data.
One is given cooked food as one is taught.
Education is a cuisine.
How to prepare and present information to the hungry mind.  
You can see how fast food dominates.  

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Third thing is although his avatar is cute and funny, and I see it as a way to ironically get back at the ILP tards, it is rather distracting whilst trying to read. First time I saw it I couldn't stop laughing. Also about the words thing, the human brain does function optimally with variation in stimulation, and using the same verbs and adjectives over and over would be dull as well. So you could throw some other variations of words in as well, not just "eat" repeated over and over but maybe "consume" too to add some sensory variation.

My avatar implies more than it symbolizes.
To the retard existing on pop-cultural surfaces it is an easy way to dismiss me as another crazy loser, dreaming of being a movie caricature.
To those who know what the caricature implies, it says a lot more.
So, keep laughing.

I use the same adjectives because I cannot be bothered to make my thoughts attractive to the moron who will dismiss them out of hand, anyway.
So, why bother?
Repeating what they have yet to deal with reminds them that they have not crossed the first hurdle.

Should I aspire to speak to a higher intellect?
I guess so...and I've recently stopped making myself clear to the average.
It attracts all sorts of imbeciles and crazy fucks.
But I also want to save some poor sap before he becomes too indoctrinated, by repeating myself in the simplest way possible.
For mass consumption.  

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Homosexuality I believe that homosexuality is irrelevant. In bee culture you see the majority of the populace are female worker bees who do not reproduce. So not reproducing is not so much an evolutionary dead-end but sometimes a vital function. In this case i'd say it is a beneficial function since humanity is becoming overpopulated and growing exponentially. However, many homosexuals do reproduce, whether through artificial insemination or through natural reproduction, so many are not homosexuals in function, only psychology.

Then you've failed to fully appreciate what is being lost when males are becoming feminized.
The sexual role makes challenging authority an compulsion.  

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

As for pedophilia one must distinguish it from hebephilia, attraction to teenagers. Most men are hebephiles and are attracted to teenage girls. It was evolutionarily advantagous for teenage girls to be attracted to older, wiser men who could keep them safe, and the human lifespan was very fragile living in the wild, so it was unsafe for women to waste time after puberty. the logical course of action was to start the babymaking as soon as they were fertile.

I think we've done this here on KT.
When I use the term "pedophile" I mean someone interested in prepubescent females, and males.

The "If it bleeds, it needs" attitude applies here.
The rest is romantic, modernistic drivel.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

As for straight up pedophiles (catholic preists, politicians, old men, etc.) i am not really sure of their psychology but i will extrapolate this. Some of them have been raped as children, and many victims of abuse grow up to enjoy the feeling of abuse. Therefore they view it as a good learning experience, so they wish to share it with others. As for the ones who were never abused or touched as children, I really can't say. Probably making up for lost childhood or something, or have some sort of psychological condition where they view their penis as a kind of breast, and semen as milk, and their pedophilia is some kind of twisted paternal or maternal function. This psychological condition is probably unbeknownst to even them.

The genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is triggered by some traumatic event - some stressful environmental occurrence.
The predisposition is a byproduct of uncontrolled reproduction, and no culling, as well as the so called "right" for all to have children and the cultivation of effete morals which permits effete males  to be selected, by females, as pragmatic, socially superior, options.

This has been covered in my The Feminization of Man essay, now part of my MANifesto...cute no?

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Memes I see that meme spreading is a very real problem. You see you guys offered some good insight earlier. Unfortunately for the universe, you see unintelligent types cannot breed intelligent memes, because intelligent memes are incompatible, and yet unintelligent memes are compatible with both types. Therefore intelligent memes are a recessive trait. One intelligent meme is "stupid people need to stop reproducing" but since stupid people can't understand this meme, we have runaway population of stupid people, who are usually hated by intellectuals seen as how stupid people like to bully and torment intellectuals.

A meme is a continuance of a genetic type. Cultures emerge out of particular populations, who have evolved within particular environments, and have experienced particular historical events.
But memes, like genes, can seed minds, like they can seed wombs, not of that population group, if and when the divergence has not proceeded to a degree where combinations become impossible.

So, if a Negro has a baby with a European the outcome will be a downgrade in the traits that are specif to the Caucasian and the Negro.
Similarly when a meme seeds the minds of populations that did not birth them the combination with the meme present creates a hybrid - like when Hellenism seeded the Semite mind, and in combination with Judaism, produced Christianity, or when Hinduism seeded the minds of Chinese populations we got Buddhism.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

It was also stated that scientists tend to have a feeble phenotype of the hooked neck dweeb, however this is not necessarily true. Many strong bearded men make good thinkers, and also tallness and bigness also tends to have bigger brains. Taller and bigger people tend to be smarter.

An elephant has a bigger brain than a human.

The brain to mass ratio is important.
Genital size must also be factored in, as it indicates a more primal, libidinal nature which may overpower the brain's reasoning.

On KT we idealize that Apollonian/Dionysian balance - it's a Hellenic idea(l).
Balance between mnid/body where mind dominates without diminishing, or rejecting, or dismissing body.
The Hellenic Ascetic Idea(l).  

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

I do not consider higherlevels anyone who puts value into traditions. For example you might run into a commoner scientist type who says "Using people's DNA after death is wrong, digging up old coffins is wrong." This is not a higher level and a deluded commoner who just happens to dabble in science and knows scientific methods. The only time it would be wrong is if they were adamant about not wanting to be cloned because they were paranoid of reincarnating, and selfishly wanted to end their own cycle of rebirth at the cost of the world benefiting from their DNA. Besides, if the scientists constructed the supras correctly, their next rebirth would be blissful. However scientists are known to make mistakes, from time to time.

You should read-up on Tradiotinalism.

Rejecting [past, is rejecting nature, because nature is the sum of all past.
Know Thyself is the knowledge, and, more importantly, the understanding of this past/nature.

Nobility is being in-line, in-tune, in harmony with this past...or being true to self, where self is a manifestation of this past/nature as appearance, presence.
This does not prevent growth, it simply restricts it to the pragmatic, the plausible, the healthy, and the real, rather than submitting to the easy detachment of reinventing self, as if from nothing, and in conflict with this past/nature.

Satyr wrote:

Then you've failed to fully appreciate what is being lost when males are becoming feminized.
The sexual role makes challenging authority an compulsion.  

Not sure what you mean by this. Both male and females have a sexual role. What you mean could go one of many ways. For example, you could be saying that males challenge authority due to their sexual nature. Or you could be saying that females challenge authority, but mostly it is out of emotional compulsion, or emotional rubberbanding. (An example of this is a female becoming hypersensitive and blissful due to estrogen, and then snapping at an authority figure in her life if said authority figure hurt her in some way, causing her to rubberband into ragemode.)
When males become feminized they become docile, and more bipolar. This can cause them to be more rebellious against authority. If the authority is noble, this is bad. If the authority is unjust, this is good. Feminization causes rubberbanding bipolarism, so fem-males are not docile all the time.
I use the terms good and bad a bit loosely here. My personal experience around feminized males is that they like to complain about authority, but rarely do anything about it other than whine. Second thing I noticed is that these people eventually become the authority, and are just as bad as the people they whine about. In essence it is bad people complaining about bad people, bad people fighting bad people, and they are motivated usually by selfish and shortsighted interests. Most of these types like to blame symptoms rather than causes, such as topics of human nature and inertia they tend to steer clear from and silence.

Satyr wrote:

The "If it bleeds, it needs" attitude applies here.

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean females are needy creatures and it's a menstrual joke? Do you mean all humans need things? Is this a statement intended to get us to buck up and make us stronger, less "bleedy and needy"? Or something else?

Satyr wrote:

The genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is triggered by some traumatic event - some stressful environmental occurrence.
The predisposition is a byproduct of uncontrolled reproduction, and no culling, as well as the so called "right" for all to have children and the cultivation of effete morals which permits effete males  to be selected, by females, as pragmatic, socially superior, options.

I wouldn't say homosexuality is necessarily associated with effete. Current theories indicate that homosexuals are caused by an excess of estrogen in the womb, which is no suprise since the world contains much air and waterborne xeno-estrogens. While it is probably true that many have a dormant trait awaiting activation (similar to how women get angry about molestation, then later fall in love ala. stockholm's syndrome) I wouldnt neccesarily say that homosexuality is effete, per se. Many homosexual phenotypes would probably survive in the wild, though they would rather keep up with city trends.

Satyr wrote:

An elephant has a bigger brain than a human.

The brain to mass ratio is important.
Genital size must also be factored in, as it indicates a more primal, libidinal nature which may overpower the brain's reasoning.

On KT we idealize that Apollonian/Dionysian balance - it's a Hellenic idea(l).
Balance between mnid/body where mind dominates without diminishing, or rejecting, or dismissing body.
The Hellenic Ascetic Idea(l).  

Whales and elephants have a lower technical oriented potential than humans, for several reasons. They do not have opposable thumbs, they are less hyperactive, and they do not fight amongst themselves nearly as often. Chimpanzees often form war parties to fight other tribes, and greeks and romans were-are no different. It is this warring mindset that grants humans the technical intellect. Do I support war? No I don't, and it is also high probability that any universe would create species with high level intellects but miserable behavoirs. Sharks do not have as high intellect because they neither have thumbs neither do they fight amongst sharks. It would be a tremendous waste of energy potential and life if after all these millenia of natural conflict that we did not use our intellects for Pleasure rather than more conflict, it would be sacrifce for naught. By Pleasure I mean absolute Pleasure which is not so easily defined. The modern human seeks Pleasure by a simplistic means, like a chimp hammering on a wall. It turns on the TV, workaday wednesday, goes to the Pub talks about the local team and hides it's head in the sand. The human idea of Pleasure is more like "pleasure" (lowercase, ind. not absolute) and a human's pleasure wouldn't even satisfy a monkey for more than a minute. My idea of Pleasure would involve a very well and carefully thought our science, vats of humans in bliss machines and years of research kind of deal.

satyr wrote:

You should read-up on Tradiotinalism.

Rejecting [past, is rejecting nature, because nature is the sum of all past.
Know Thyself is the knowledge, and, more importantly, the understanding of this past/nature.

Lifeforms have come a long way, some say the world is getting better, the world is getting worse. The world's progression is going along the course of nature and nature (inertia) is not good or bad, it just is. We should use this moment of peace to secure our future, lest we be swept away by the tide of time, or even worse, the tide of the mainstream.

Satyr wrote:

The beta-male tactic is an alternative.

What tactic do you describe?

Satyr wrote:

This is the beta-male psychology.
The "nice guy" psychology.
What you call bipolar I've called schizophrenia.
It's a split between the genetic disposition and them emetic ideal; a rift between gene and meme when the meme is nihilistic.

Do you mean meta-bipolar and meta-schizophrenic or real bipolar and real schizophrenic? In my experience with the two, they rarely get along. Though both are characterized by massive feminization, they tend to fight amongst each other. Their psychologies are quite distinct also, schizophrenics tend to completely disgregard social ettiquite and social customs, such as what to wear and how to groom, whilst bipolars are usually conformative because they are much more self-conscious and feminine. Whilst schizophrenics are hyper-feminine they are more along the lines of an abused woman or a woman scorned, an untamed lioness who feels betrayed by her alpha.

You mention that betas lash out against authority as an attention seeking mechanism, however how would you describe the alphas that wish to change authority, as with the panopticon all around such an excersize feels rather vain.

You mention a dis-ease in Roman times, do you mean the Christ? He did preach passivity, non-action, but at the same time he flipped over tables and upset the governing structure. For a female he did pretty well, unfortunately modern Christians do not understand his teachings and are either hyper violent and conforming, or hyper passive do-nothings.

Satyr wrote:

Good  = pleasure

Yes...but for what reason.
Is pleasure the end, or a mechanism that notifies the organism that ti is behaving in harmony with its nature?

I feel pleasure at the taste fo sugar, why?
Is it pleasure for its own sake?
No, it is pleasure because a need is being gratified.

I feel pleasure during sex, or sometimes during exercise, why?
Because energies that have accumulated are expunged.
how are energies accumulated?
Yes, need/suffering successfully satiated, and the excess stored.
As fat, or sometimes on a more immediate stand-by: nervous energy (for the fight/flight mechanism), libidinal energy (for the reproductive mechanism).

Are you sure the energy is expunged? For example, you might put sugar in your tongue, and that might release hormones and chemicals, which might release energy towards your consciousness, not away from it.

Similar to a mechanism of a door, when tension in the lock mechanism is released, the door opens and light energy floods towards the consciousness. It's not so much energy being expunged, but the tension in the lock mechanism being expunged.

The meta of it would be hunger builds up so much tension until the tension snaps and pleasure floods. Hunger being a meta for (metaphor) anything lust life etc.

No no no you got me all wrong, I'm not one of "those" peoples. It annoys me when people like to throw the "nihilist" label around.

I suppose I foresaw this, my use of the word "life" did indicate a kind of bliss during death.

Death, in the conventional sense, suicide, won't bring anyone any kind of bliss. I don't believe that consciousness simply ceases after biodeath, a view popular these days with atheists and intellectual-types.

Satyr wrote:

The universe, little girl, is not a opium den for you.
Pleasure must be earned, struggled for, sought after...
The world doesn't give a shit about your hopes, your pleasures, your needs, dear.

I'm well aware of this, in my younger years it used to anger me, the general apathy of the human race, even to assist with their own selfish needs. Now I just realize it is inertia, machines, chimpanzees. In order to "fix" it one must think outside the box.

But what is there to fix? Evolution bred this. The universe does not only not care about you, dear, but the universe naturally breeds misery, scarcity. Luck would have it the majority of lives on Earth are unpleasant. Just a microdegree and the Earth's temperature rises 20 degrees off-orbit. I would rather burn than freeze, and the universe is mostly cold with a bit of stars here and there.

So I suppose you are asking yourself, how did I get lucky? I've been thinking the same thing, I've been wondering why I wasn't born in Africa or some other shit-hole somewhere. I've been wondering, why aren't I some mindless insect? Maybe there are some bottom limits to sentience, or maybe I was some africa kid in a past life. What I do know is that natural selection creates senses of lust and craving, and the majority of time an organism is scavenging about in a state of misery, only to align itself for a brief moment of harmony. Which is what you said to me last night, or something along those lines.

While I believe that absolute Death, non-existence, non-experience, is an Ideal, no scientific part of me believes such a thing is so easy as going t the local gunstore and puting the cold steel 12 inches imbetween your thighs and pulling the trigger. Nonono, it requires more work than simple "death" like some modern atheist would have me like to believe. Your original quote comes in mine.

Satyr wrote:

The universe, little girl, is not a opium den for you.
Pleasure must be earned, struggled for, sought after...
The world doesn't give a shit about your hopes, your pleasures, your needs, dear.

If we are to overcome the work of millions of years of inertia and natural selection, we can't count on natural selection to do it for us. (though we can't really step outside of natural selection as we are a product of it.)

Don't be so quick in your conclusions about me, it's a bit yawn-inducing, as is the majority of the internet communities.

The majority of the world is scarcity, the majority of the universe is empty and cold. How does one adapt life to fit that, when the years of evolution have been evolving life to only appreciate the rarities, food, shelter, and heat? How does one get life to not merely appreciate scarcity, but physically live in it? Current humans require oxygen.

I would venture to guess that only matter has a weakness to matter, and although we are already light beings, one might guess that to experience and thrive in the universe one would have to become a new kind of energy being, as the human soul is organic, single celled membrane, and not photonic, and yet, experience seems to be derived from the photonic. Matter is after all, just another form of light, a converted form of light, e=mc2.

This new kind of being may or may not be derived from the body upon death, and may or may not be created by future science, mental will, or alchemy, I am unsure.

The goal of evolution may be to see if matter can eventually spawn that which it is not. The idea that the human soul is a large single celled membrane is an odd one.

Satyr wrote:

Matter = Slow (inter)action in relation to the observer

Energy = Fast (inter)action in relation to the observer

Light is the extreme limit of human perceptual-event-horizon.
As you approach the limit of what the human can perceive patterns in the whiteness represents the brightness of patterns that cannot be differentiated.
The pattern of light is the most dynamic pattern the human sense organ can perceive, and the human brain can process.    

So, do you believe some humans (or beings) could sense things outside the rainbow spectrum, say could some sense other forms of EM photon waves like radio waves? Radio is a form of light but not rainbow light.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

The majority of the world is scarcity, the majority of the universe is empty and cold. How does one adapt life to fit that, when the years of evolution have been evolving life to only appreciate the rarities, food, shelter, and heat? How does one get life to not merely appreciate scarcity, but physically live in it? Current humans require oxygen.

Increase in consciousness can also increase the sensitivity to aesthetics, when survival at any cost becomes ugly and there come notions of death and honour and a certain kind of life when ideals and principles also become more self-demanding. The more evolved being will not cease suffering, if that is the end goal for you.