"Friends" of a drug addict cannot help the addict break free of his addiction. There's a reason they are friends.
Friends of a crazy person are not the solution to his insanity....they would not be his friends if they were not, insane, as well.
A narcissist gathers the types of minds that feed into, and feed from, his narcissism. It's a symbiotic relationship. He tells them how "amazing" he is, what a "genius" he is, and they, as psychotics, themselves, feed their own insecurities by inflating his - reciprocal delusion. His, theoretical greatness, means that they, by association, are also great.
"Birds of a feather..." ...psychological herding.
What Modernity does, by detaching minds from a world they no longer find a source of power, is that it makes them lost, desperate....willing to grasp upon anything that promises a "better" source of self-esteem. With no past/nature, to anchor upon, to family, no father or mother figure to find sustenance from, they seek in random others, what they lack in themselves. In time, some, find each other, establishing hierarchies of over-compensating despair.
Using each other, they need not pay attention to anything outside this relationship - they feed off each other, becoming a psychological self-contained unity - clique.
Freud wanted to replace the mythology in our “explanations” of human action. Similarly, Wittgenstein wanted to see through the mythology involved in philosophical attempts to understand language: do not be taken in by the surface grammar of language, but understand it through “use.”
At the same time, Wittgenstein realized that Freud introduced a new mythology, which charmed and captivated, despite its unflattering nature. As McGuinness puts it, Wittgenstein “accepted and rejected Freud in equal measure, perhaps healthily.” His attitude to Weininger seems much the same: an attitude of ambivalence. He embraces and distances himself from Weininger in equal measure in the letter to Moore. Yet when it came to the list of influences, Wittgenstein included Weininger and left out Freud. What differences between Weininger and Freud account for this? One response to this question starts from Freud’s strategy of arguing that things that look different are really the same. For instance, he denies that there is any real difference between normal and abnormal behavior, in that both are to be explained in terms of deep unconscious forces. Wittgenstein’s line of thinking is radically different. The following remark on Hegel is equally applicable to Freud:
Hegel seems to me to be always wanting to say that things which look different are really the same. Whereas my interest is in showing that things which look the same are really different. I was thinking of using as a motto for my book a quotation from King Lear: “I’ll teach you differences".
In my own philosophical positions difference precedes sameness, as a prerequisite of it...as consciousness precedes self-consciousness. Appreciation of sameness is really finding a shared pattern, in congruities of patterns, reducing it to this common-denominator...forcing the mind lower and lower, until such a shared-denominator is found. In nihilistic systems this can reach the lowest-common-denominator, to preserve the notion of unity, and parity.
Wittgenstein reads Weininger wrote:
This indicates a deep difference between Weininger and Freud. While Freud thought of himself as a scientist and a reductionist, Weininger resisted both scientism and reductionism in his writings, where he insisted on differences of many kinds: between and among men and women, different temperaments, and cultures. Weininger, like Wittgenstein, was trained as a scientist, but became an antiscientistic thinker, opposed to those who extend scientific methods into areas where they are inappropriate. Hence Freud gives dangerous pseudoexplanations, while Weininger and Wittgenstein accent description, and depiction of facts and practices. Again, Freud is an essentialist, trying to bring all human behavior under one explanatory rubric, while Wittgenstein is an anti-essentialist. Weininger certainly looks like an essentialist, with his quasi-Platonic definitions of opposite Types, and his purported explanation of all character in terms of the ManWoman dichotomy, but Wittgenstein may have found in Weininger’s ever-inventive discovering of new distinctions an anti-essentialist movement of thought that he wished to clarify.
Wittgenstein may also have identified with the spirit in which Weininger wrote. Wittgenstein’s struggle with hypocrisy, with self-deception in oneself and one’s work, his emphasis on clarity and clarification as a value in itself, and his respect for the particular case are all relevant here. In the late 1940s, Wittgenstein contrasted Weininger with Kafka in the following terms: Kafka, he said, “gave himself a great deal of trouble not writing about his trouble,” while Weininger, “whatever his faults, was a man who really did write about his.” Weininger wrote about problems in his own life, while Freud wrote about problems in other people’s lives. Weininger worked on himself as he engaged in the activity of philosophizing and psychologizing, while Freud had the disengaged posture of the scientist. So Freud’s scientism, essentialism, and his captivating new mythology are not only mistakes but also personal flaws:
The less somebody knows & understands himself the less great he is, however great may be his talent. For this reason our scientists are not great. For this reason Freud, Spengler, Kraus, Einstein are not great.
Not to Know Thyself, is to remain oblivious to how you are perceived, how you relate to world, trapping you in the dominant role of casual observer, critic, of what you fail to include yourself in - superior not because of a honest relationship with world, and others within it, but based on the distance of theory, abstraction disconnected from reality. Narcissism, over-estimating the value of self, in relation to otherness, is dependent no reflecting, upon others, what one most wishes to be perceived as - anger and hatred come quickly to the mind refused this demand - willed but not received. The individual seeks out sycophants, or simple gullible, weak minds to dominate and receive the desired reflection.
Wittgenstein reads Weininger wrote:
Freud believed he had made a series of scientific discoveries, discoveries that provided for a scientific theory of the mind. Wittgenstein reads him as an inventor of an unscientific “way of thinking” that laid claim to the authority of a science; ultimately, psychoanalysis was not only a “powerful mythology” but also a form of self-deception. Freud says: Think like this. Weininger and Wittgenstein say: Here is one way or line of thinking; now keep it in mind but think for yourself.
Self-deceit is a important par tof Judaic victimhood, resolving many paradoxes produced by their nihilistic relationship to reality, but also dealing with the power attained by playing the weakling - Jewish Paradox. Quantity overwhelming Quality.
Christians deal with it with the idea of "sin", but is still unable to justify a "good" God, allowing "evil", without the ambiguity of human "free-will", a synthesis of self-contradiction.
Wittgenstein reads Weininger wrote:
In sum, we have developed a parallel and a contrast between Wittgenstein’s readings of Freud and of Weininger. Wittgenstein spoke of Freud’s extraordinary scientific achievement and of himself as a disciple of Freud, terms of praise at least as strong as those he gave to Weininger. Yet he was an implacable critic of Freud’s claims to have provided a scientific theory of the mind, or to have made scientific discoveries. This ambivalence is reminiscent of Wittgenstein’s treatment of Weininger too, both in content and vocabulary. However, Weininger’s writing helped Wittgenstein to resist the kind of essentialism and scientism that Freud, in his role as scientist of the mind, takes for granted.
The Uses of Reading Section 375 of the Philosophical Investigations consists of a series of Socratic questions about reading: How does one teach anyone to read to himself? How does one know if he can do so? How does he himself know that he is doing what is required of him?
In answering them, Wittgenstein urges us to resist the inclination to turn inward, and the related attractions of a picture of reading as an inner process or activity, psychological or neurological. Sections 156 to 171 contain an extended examination of the concept of reading, a topic Wittgenstein repeatedly discussed. Here, he directs our attention to the skill of producing the right sounds as one looks at the words on the page; understanding what is read need not be part of this activity. In this sense of the word, it is possible to imagine a person who serves as a “reading machine,” vocalizing correctly, but without any understanding of the text. One aim of this passage is to get the reader to distinguish between reading, in this reproductive sense, and reading with understanding; another is to combat the idea that “reading is just a special inner experience which you may or may not accompany by utterance out loud of the words you read.
Incantation of a "magical prayer" Difference between Knowledge & Understanding being determined not by the assimilation and recitation of words, evoking patterns, but by connecting them, producing meaning. Meaning relating to world of appearances, not to human abstractions.
Word/symbol the connector, the conduit, reflecting the neural system, connecting mind & body.
Nihilistic detachment is the disconnection of word/symbol form the external reference point, leaving ti in limbo - the mind reconnects it back to itself, where it is easily manipulated by will - Will acquires a god-like power producing the delusion of inter-subjectivity, the dominance of the subjective over the unruly, unknown objective world/reality.
Wittgenstein reads Weininger wrote:
Perhaps these reflections on reading can shed light on Wittgenstein’s ways of reading others’ works as well as the difficulties he encountered in doing so. For once we distinguish reproductive reading from reading with understanding, and recognize that both of them are practical abilities, rather than a self-authenticating inner process, this leaves open the possibility that being well-read is no guarantee that one has understood what one has read. Reading and influence are complex notions. As we read Wittgenstein on reading we are reminded that “we also use the word ‘to read’ for a family of cases. And in different circumstances we apply different criteria for a person’s reading.”
To say of a person that we can read him or her like a book is to say that we understand that person very well – that he or she is transparent to us. But when the book is itself complicated and opaque, when it does not wear its meaning on its face, as it were, then we have a problem. Are we to understand “reading” in these circumstances as a process, or as an achievement, or both? As our various authors stress, there are many ways in which one can read and be influenced by an author. The first assessments of Weininger’s influence on Wittgenstein were relatively brief, rather general, and gave little attention to textual details and analysis. They also tended toward the purely biographical, without addressing the philosophical. Yet the relations between life and philosophy, influence and originality, are themselves themes that link Weininger and Wittgenstein.
Indeed, it is striking that the passage on Wittgenstein’s influences, cited at the beginning of this introduction, is surrounded by remarks on influence and originality that have a strongly Weiningerian character.
Understanding is to render transparent, explaining why Moderns find fertile ground for preserving their delusions, their shared dis-ease, in confusion, in complexity, in clouding the issue with unnecessary words - mystifying.
I think there is some truth in my idea that I am really only reproductive in my thinking. I think I have neverinventeda line of thinking but that it was always provided for me by someone else & I have done no more than passionately take it up for my work of clarification. That is how Boltzmann Hertz Schopenhauer Frege, Russell, Kraus, Loos Weininger Spengler, Sraffa have influenced me.
The list appears to be arranged according to the chronological order in which they influenced Wittgenstein. One sign of this is the odd punctuation of the list, which is due to the fact that Wittgenstein first wrote just four names – “Frege, Russell, Spengler, Sraffa” – and added the other names, carefully arranged in order, above the line. The first three names are authors Wittgenstein read as a teenager; Frege and Russell first had an impact on him when he was in his early twenties. While Wittgenstein would certainly have known of Kraus and Weininger long before1914, for both were famous and controversial in fin-de-si`ecle Vienna, their position on the list, and the fact that Kraus, Loos and Weininger all had an influence on theTractatus, which was composed during the First World War, suggests that their influence should be dated to the war years, or immediately before. All three were important influences on Paul Engelmann and his friends in Olm¨ utz with whom Wittgenstein stayed during an extended leave in the summer of1916. Spengler’s influence would have been after the publication of The Decline of the West,in1918, while Wittgenstein first met Sraffa after returning to Cambridge in 1929. In most cases, while the precise nature of the influence is certainly debatable, the overall character is not.
Two children of Judaism with sexual dysfunctions making them unable to fulfill their memetic role, of reproducing the genetic type, critique and expose modernity - whistle blowers, to which we can add Heisman as a late entry.
A liar and a plagiarist, a truth thief, begins with a half-truth, to be convincing. When others are onto him he covers what remains of his leis with selective portions of truth, hoping to bury it, but keep it as a foundation.
A lie as foundation offers shaky ground, no matter how many portions of the truth you place onto of it. It shakes, with every fluctuation produced by (inter)activity.
A plagiarist is a lying artist. Lacking creative genius, he copies that of another. Unable to imitate the foundations, rooted in stress, in need/suffering, he copies the image of need/suffering, adopting the character of a Messiah, hoping to gain a similar following, and make a similar effect. With no experience he studies the art produced by creative geniuses - trying to discover its smallest particle, what others in their obtuse numbness cannot perceive....the paint dot, on canvas, the chisels strike on marble. Plagiarists begin with the smallest perceptible particle, to copy.
Covering their tracks, they simply change one color for another, replace one word with another, use wood instead of stone, go up an octave in a note... The rest they keep, pretending it is of their own making.
If their imitation remains unacknowledged they declare themselves the equal of the great artist genius, attempting to receive what they cannot in any other way. The copy is passed on as their own genius - they sell it to naive, simpletons, using desperate marketing technicians, like disciples, spreading the "word" of their worth.
If challenged, they use mass appeal, to silence dissenters, shaming those that fail to see the genius so many others can appreciate. The motive is to sell, to receive fame and fortune, to live in the minds of the many, as a talented artist, when all he did was copy and paste. Stealing from here, and taking from there - a hodge-podge of Frankenstein monstrosity, resurrecting the dead, defeating mortality...the dream of eternal life. his scavenged parts untraceable by the average onlooker.
His confused monstrosity, having a short-life - it cannot survive the flux with no foundations. It shifts as the earth quakes, its crumbles... Confusion used to create the semblance of brilliance, is but a symbol, with no reference.
Greek proverb wrote:
Liar and a thief, rejoice only the first year.
>>Ο ψεύτης και ο κλέφτης τον πρώτο χρόνο χαίρονται<<
A child that has not gone through the natural rites of passage, particularly a male, idolizes his same-sex parent, and if this parent proves to be contrary to cultural ideals, or has died, the child replaces them with an icon. The icon is worshiped, in the absent parent's place - of the parent is alive the icon is chosen from among the dead, if he is dead he becomes the icon.
The icon is then harmonized with an idea(l) - converted to a theory, a pure noetic construct.
Dead icons are more useful because they cannot contradict the child's idealization with their actions/behavior. They are malleable, as all noumena are. The child can shape and reinterpret memory to fit into a desirable idea(l) outcome.
This is the practical utility of the absent absolute. It is its very absence which makes it malleable, convertible, adjustable to any desirable outcome. Nihilism thrives on the absent absolute - its very name is derived from the notion of a cosmos void of meaning, universal morality, god. A child's trauma, experiencing a missing parent, growing up to be psychotic.
Within the contexts of patterns and how they produce attraction/repulsion, described [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and in numerous other threads, attraction/repulsion is not a willful choice. The organism may awaken to them, and try to understand, so as to attain a level of control, or focus them more precisely, but attraction/repulsion is a product of the very essence of an organism, as is its field of effect. It attracts/repels in accordance to the patterns participating in its congruence, producing an aggregate excess of repulsion/attraction, once these are canceled out as part of its organization's hierarchies.
An organism is a congruity of patterns, not in absolute, perfect, harmony. The attraction/repulsion dynamics between the organism's differing patterns manifest as a combined spontaneous repulsive/attraction field of effect. This is what is called the specific organism's personae (personality, psychology/psyche), its nature....Character is this repulsive/attractive field of effect under a particular level of control. The control might be willful, or might be the result of education/training, that has stifled and repressed or has cultivated and promoted in accordance to a desired goal - an idea(l) (meme). This is character. Character is, therefore, genetics within memetic contexts. ...and so, gender is sexual specialization within cultural contexts, and race is human breeds within socioeconomic contexts.
To put it simpler, persona is nature/past manifesting as presence/appearance, as behavior, and character is nurture the inflation and deflation of innate, inherited personality/psyche. The idea(l) used determined the measurement of the outcome, its worth/value.
But the final decree comes from objective reality, indifferent to all human ideals, and standards of measurement. This final arbiter (blind justice) of Flux, determines cost/benefit which no human ideal can erase, but only reduce or accentuate, and only for a short time, and within a confined space.
The interesting thing is, that the same outcome, due to the nature of flux, will have a different cost/benefit balance, during different periods of time/space, but this difference will not be so great as to make all preparation, and prediction impossible and irrelevant.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
From garbage one cannot expect anything but the smell of decay and sepsis. To find a use for it (wring from it what value remains), you must grind it into mulch (effort), and then evenly spread it over the soil to fertilize your garden, where you've planted seeds that will one day bear sweet fruit.
Nature recycles, cadavers, and decomposes filth, returning all to the Flux, from where new patterns emerge. All it takes is time, and a farmer's disposition.
Hyper-Masculinity is overcompensation for the castrated ones, the mentally circumcised. Dreams of fertilizing a cosmic womb, when they copy, creating clones, imitate, fabricate, and having no real father-figure, they adopt cadavers, raise them from the dead, baptize them, make them members of the Kabbalah out of which the "true" messiah will come.
Feeble men-children inflating their testicles with injections of testosterone, learning the text so that it can be recited, as a second-nature, to cope with their first, their innate nature, as feeble follower of masculine energies. Inner female expressing herself as macho man, hiding her vagina with a cod-piece.
When philosophy becomes about human husbandry, politics, psychology, marketing dominates. Wisdom about world is reduced to techniques of exploiting and manipulating the masses, and the study of reality is reduced to the study about the study about reality, from the perspective of how this perspective affected people, or how popular it became.
Fame and Fortune is the Moderns materialistic/hedonistic replacement of the Abrahamic God and eternity lost. Icons of "philosophy" are worshiped because of their influence or whatever posthumous fame and fortune he accumulated. To covet what one lacks in self is the calling card of the modern infected by the Nihilistic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Along the Yellow Brick Road... A zombie craves healthy flesh and blood, a coward craves courage, the brainless craves a brain, a weakling craves strength, a heartless man craves a heart, the castrated craves testicles....
A congruity of congruities, a unity/tribe of organisms - a clique, a clan, a fellowship on the same path to the same destination, each with his own agenda. An alliance of need/suffering. Friendship built no lack, expressed as desire, desperate hyperbolic covetousness.
Who sits behind the curtain as Wizard of Oz, but the icon himself. Behind the impressive performance, a simple man, using the burial mask of a dead man.
Philosophy becomes a pretext for the study of techniques/technologies to achieve earthly happiness, to find personal fulfillment.
The left has always and will always fail – taking over when surpluses accumulate, to disseminate them evenly within a system, to preserve some parity. If they remain in power for too long, then deficits will undoubtedly make the right necessary. They are the political expression of Nihilism – detached, romantic, words void of connection to reality – naive idealists, ranging from Marxists to Anarchists, and from Social liberals to Maoists. Their detachment from reality results in a failure to apply their dogmas in a world indifferent to human fantasies, desires, hopes. Nihilism, and its branches of Abrahamism and secular Humanism/Marxism, are impotent, useless outside human minds, and by extension manmade environments – socioeconomic systems. Environments created, in accordance with human ideals, and maintained with constant human interventions upon natural processes. Within this context does the magical effect of words apply, and it is only there that words can be arranged in any sequence imaginable, if they simply trigger the desired psychological reaction in the listener, soon to be follower. Soviet Union fell, China has had to arrange a contradicting sub-system to survive, as Judeo-Christians/Muslims must contradict their own beliefs to survive within world, and the modern secular variant of the same dis-ease? Well, he must lie, first to himself and then to those he seeks approval from, from those he depends upon, and maintain a reciprocal relation of need with. Nihilism, in its most current variant, its last (Modern), is duplicitous. Its words never coincide with its actions, because if it were to remain true to its own declared principles, it would perish in a world it denies, and claims to be its own creation. Judaism had to create a postponed, validation, and is now dealing with the paradoxes its own power founded on chosen to suffer is presenting. Obsessive hedonism has to be justified by the eternal victims. Christianity has been exposed from behind its Hellenic covering, Islam struggling to find its own masks. Marxism could not secularize Abrahamism with its naive conception of human nature. Humanism in the throes of identity crisis is cutting at its own legs, hoping technologies will soon be available for an efficient prosthetic to substitute for it.
In an insane asylum the loudest, most outspoken crazy receives all the attention, from the staff, and form the other inmates. He feels special, receiving so much for so little, the staff monitors the events, preventing ti from getting out of hand, but happy when all the inmates are preoccupied, distracting them form mischief.
Crazies in a circle is a win-win circumstance, if only temporary. A break in between feedings, medication, and lights out. Inmates being what they are, has much disposable time and energy requiring controlled harmless release. They cannot all be constantly medicated, nor distracted with childish entertainment, nor can they sleep away the entire day. It's a problem that finds its own solution, once you establish a routine and the rules of acceptable behavior.
Whether some think they are Napoleon, or reincarnations of Jesus, or bees buzzing, is of little matter. What matters is how to discharge all that organic energy harmlessly, and perhaps functionally. A method of making the repair of institutional facilities, turning it into a game, is one way among many. How to make the inmates agencies of maintaining their own incarceration, is a win/win, and all it takes is one loud, attention seeking, crazy.
Sheltering, particularly by a dominant father-figure, causes psychological stunting. The first born is like the parent of the opposite sex, and so if a boy it identifies with the mother, which if weak, because she was also dominated, becomes the source of the boy's resentment, and his passion to be more than his overbearing father - a father his mother deserved. He will redirect this desire towards male friends, becoming, for them, the father he wished his was, or actually was, replacing him (killing him, in the Freudian sense), overcoming him, by becoming him. His mother's adoration, telling him how he was the smartest, the best, the fastest, the handsomest boy in the world, transforms into an obsession to prove her right. Her weakness, her tenderness he identifies with, internally, while externally he wears his father's authority. He becomes his father, and his "friends" representations of himself, during those early days. He finds such lost boys, among those with father issues of their own - with man issues. They are looking for their own father, and he wants to become, for them, his own father, to overcome him.
Negro culture is a source of hyper-masculinity. Fatherless boys, emasculated minds, compensate in a show of aggression, arrogance, egotism. Sheltered "white boyz" find in African anger, an expression of their resentment for their own, missing or overwhelming Fathers...because a bad present father can be worse than an absent one. Imitation of inmate gestures, vocal tones, a forced regurgitation of word-associating self-aggrandizement, exposes white guilt, implanted there by a nihilistic meme wanting to destroy the only force standing in its way.
Females have an innate, advantage, over males, when it comes to psychoanalyzing others. Their role, evolved into a ability to read, through behavior, actions, the other's intent, no matter what was stated.
Where they fall short, is in conceptualizing this intuitive advantage, experiencing it as a feeling they cannot bring into consciousness, feeling it without pinpointing how or why. In nature, they did not have to go beyond the sensation, aiding them in their social ambitions. Their specialized reproductive role ensured their place within the group, and that of their offspring, during the long periods of gestation and weening. A successful male has to do more than that. He had to get into the mind of an alien organism, to help him succeed in hunting, improving his social status. He had to not only feel the other's intent, but know why and how, because he was dealing with a different psychology than his own human one. He had to focus on externalized signs, behavioural nuances, subtle patterns, to outperform his fellow hunters. It was not enough to turn inward for guidance, using self as the standard, when dealing with a different organism, he had to externalize this self-knowledge and adjust it to the hypothetical psychology of an entirely different species, with which he had minimal intimate contact. But this was also her advantage. The fact that she could base her choices on intuition, not having to explain it, made her efficient. The fact that she was dealing with her own kind, with which she had intimate, continuous contact with, and to which she was related genetically, was an advantage. Her status was socially derived, and guaranteed. A male's was that and more. His was not guaranteed, when one male could fertilize multiple females. Not until later, with the development of more complex societies, with the coming of massive tribes, did males become less expendable, and had to be integrated into the social group by partially taking away female sexual powers. A change that males first became aware of, and it was they who applied it, producing the present animosity towards Paternalism.
The talents-less mimics talent. The plagiarizer copies. The weakling imitates strength. The coward imitates courage. A non-thinker regurgitates thinking. A non-philosopher studies philosophers, repeating their words precisely. An actor learns his lines and follows direction - trying to repeat both perfectly, convincingly, trying to embody the essence of another.
From one authority to the next, to the next master, to the next artist, thinker, play, each time trying to be the best plagiarist, the perfect copier. Hoping that repeating the act will develop into the spirit that produced what he covets. hoping imitation will become fact.
He is a Modern manimal. Underlying his ambition is the common belief that genetics is not inherited potential, a limit to possibilities, but parity. All are born with the same potentials, and learn/cultivate what is different. Here is why he fails to continue the performance, and why, in time, his pretentious lie is exposed.
A well trained orangutan, repeating the gestures, actions of his male trainers, will not evolve into a human. It may convince other orangutans, but humans will smile and laugh at it.
Psychological pattern... A leader needs to lead, a follower needs to follow. The two will find each other, will become congruent, meeting each others needs, as a product of their essence: aggregate of the congruent attraction/repulsion.
It is not the follower's choice, but his nature, as it has been determined in the past, that makes him act/behave in the only way he could. A weak spirit will gravitate towards strong spirits, and then justify it after-the-fact. He will fall in-line, imitate, as interaction produces a balance of attraction/repulsion - tension. Leaders' goals, ambitions ,are now his. He attempts to imitate the one he follows, pull himself forward to sit beside the leader, but he is what he is, a follower, and his imitation remains just that, an imitation. He repeats the leader's words, copies his gestures, repeats his signs.
One leader gives way to another, but the follower remains true to his essence, because to alter a patterns particularly a congruity of pattern's requires a traumatic event, a force equal or superior than the pattern established, a life risking, and so life altering event, and in these times of sheltering these are no longer common.
We reach a cognitive impasse when we realize that we haven't been going forward, at all, that we've been going in circles, or worse, slipping backwards, losing our footing, on the incline. We become distressed when we realize we must turn back, to go forward - reorienting ourselves.
But how many have the courage to see the mistake, and make adjustments? Most continue on, untroubled. They've seen what lies behind, recalling why they first turned away, why they did not use their hands when they began to lose footing, why they did not stop when they realized they were going round and round.
Inherited traits, cultivated, sharped, by experienced stress (pain/suffering) is what brings forth talent, style, charisma. An individual who survived difficult circumstances, and came out stronger.
This cannot be copied. Its appearance/presence, might be imitated, but missing the inherited and experienced past, it is no more than an empty shirt, with no body.
Spirit = inherited and experienced past - nurture + nature = personality, psychology.
So, experiences minus inherited potential, and/or inherited potential minus experiences = performance - character/caricature. The first comes across as fake, forced, the second as dull, empty. Character acting can be learned, but not personality, not spirit, not style.
Sheltering, pampering, the protective shield of humanity and its mitigating institutions, make reality, nature something exotic, something strange and unique, something to be caged and studies from afar, something "unreal" compared to our experienced manmade "alternate reality".
Nietzsche is now one of the displays, for girls and little boys, to visit and observe, wide-eyed, as if they were looking at an alien species evolve in an alien world.
For us pagans Nietzsche is no more than a kindred spirit, who with eloquence and courage, stated the obvious, to stunted minds and sickly spirits; spoke honestly, if not clearly, in a world of lies and pretentious duplicity. The degree of worship he has received by the very products of Nihilistic detachment and Modern sheltering, is fascinating. He is now their adopted icon, for minds not used to that level of realism. Is this not why he had to hide it in aphoristic metaphors? So infectious, to the infantile, that you cannot discuss world with those morons, without referring and deferring to the only connection with it they have ever experienced. It has gotten to the point where discussing reality has to go through his words, his imagery, now a singular conduit to nature/past, these stunted minds will ever experience. It has gotten to the level where the obvious is now profound insight for naive men-children, and the self-evident is now deep insight for mental cripples.
Granted, the literature professor said it with such artistic eloquence that brain-dead Moderns could not help but be aroused, in an age of linguistic retardation, presented with so many Spartan Delphic metaphors that they could use his words to masturbate forever.
Thing about nihilists, and idiots, in general, is that they have no real experience with reality, outside human, sheltering, and predictability....so they can never accurately evaluate their own behaviour. They have no standard, outside human political-economic, cultural memetic, artifices, to gauge their behaviour. They come across as delusional imbeciles, within the boundaries of social conventions, declaring themselves anything, within a "reality' where identity is under question, and words need not adhere to causal chains, and linear time, not refer to anything other than emotion, and sensation - the malleable subjective.
As a consequence what is produced is what I call idealistic cliques, each one finding a shared identity, usually around some icon, which they've interpreted ni a manner that satisfies their shared psychosis, feeding into their shared need/suffering. Uniformity of thinking, nihilism makes possible, is expressed as multiplicity, unhindered by any external limitation, any standard outside subjectivity - this leads to fragmentation, demanding increasing institutional supervision, substituting the corrective processes of nature.
Intervention upon natural processes produces genetic and memetic garbage, pollution, which necessitates further interventions, snowballing into a slow decline, until implosion comes as a result of the self-feeding system being unable to bring to bear the energies required to deal with the consequences its own interventions caused. The apparent is in the form of pollution - material (physical) and genetic (dysfunctions: mental illness, physical diseases etc.). What natural selection eliminates is preserved and allowed to propagate, resulting in increasing medical and policing interventions.
Intellectually, or noetically, as expressed in philosophy, political theory, judgments, the same process permits mental dis-eases to propagate, protected from the application of their won principles, sheltered from the full costs to their beliefs, permitting benefits to offer the believer the illusion that he know "truth". As a result mental disconnection from reality, allows the mind to continue believing in any absurdity, world not correcting him, if he remains disciplined to systemic rules. Philosophy is inundated with delusional ideologies, each interpreting the past in whatever sick way is appealing in the present.
As I've said elsewhere, Nihilism, by detaching from the regulating force of reality, can go off into flights of fancy, inventing any theory that satisfies the childish soul, protected form the consequences, it grows bold, arrogant, narcissistic - not humbled by reality, by nature. with no past/nature to anchor them, to give them identity and strength, the modern mind can surrender to subjective delusion - in time this will produce pockets of delusion, where shared needs, psychosis, congregates, into gangs, cliques, centered around a detached from reality ideology, finding in icons a spiritual leader, a justification. Protected from world, all they must remain disciplined to is the rule of allow and order which provides this sheltering. They can then go into any delusional direction they desire.
From the uniformity of Nihilism, starting from a basic founding principle of detaching from past/nature, explodes into multiplicity - fragmenting the uniformity. Singularity of idea exploding into chaos of thinking.
Predator instinctively senses weakness, in the way the prey walks, runs, stands, behaves. The memetic virus, senses weakness in th way the prey uses words, constructs, grammar, sequences, rhythms, verbal tempo, symbol choices.
First step is to not frighten the prey. To remain hidden, before ambush, to not be sniffed out among the grass, the other is to coo, emit sounds the prey will find comforting, relaxing, intimate, to flatter, to use positive reinforcement, to get closer, to gain trust.
With no external, shared, standard to evaluate perspectives, every imbecile can claim he understood a theory, is the true representative of a thinker, and there's no way to determine who is right and who wrong; all declarations, all interpretations, are just as plausible as the other... the only measure could be recitation, quotation, adopting and using the same jargon, showing memory, obsession, and more consistent contact with the thinker. Philosophy is not that. The standard of philosophy, as it is for its offspring science, is empiricism, sensually accessible phenomena, testability... prediction success (cost/benefit), utility. Philosophy offers useful, pragmatic insights, or it is nothing but politics and spirituality. The measure of quality, in science and philosophy is not how many believe in it, how it makes us feel, how "positive" it sounds, but how it relates to an experienced world, and consequently how applicable it is.
Many are now approaching science as they would religion: with an expectation, an emotional demand, a sense of entitlement – knowing automatically meaning overcoming, escaping, salvation. This is corrupting philosophy, making it into a self-help discipline – chicken-soup for the soul.
To be perceptible to subtle sensual input, is the consequence of higher cognitive functions. Stimuli enter the brain continuously, most of it unprocessed, and never being integrated into an abstraction. These stimulations fall away, in time, are stored, for a time in the sub-conscious, where they emerge during sleep, or express themselves as intuition, gut-feeling, a sensation the mind cannot rationalize. Hyper-Awareness is a product of a more sophisticated mind, that can bring into consciousness more of the data streaming into the brain from external and internal sources. It means the brain is lucid to a higher degree, having integrated more sensual input into its mental models, its abstractions - less unresolved sensation fall into the subconscious, or are lost in time. Sensitivity of the sense organs to stimuli is a factor - organism cannot convert into neural code what its sense organ fails to be stimulated by. Sense organ sensitivity is not the same as hyper-sensitivity.
Hyper-Sensitivity refers to a psychological state, or a weak nervous system, including brain, which is threatened by over-stimulation. The nervous system's weakness being part of the organ hierarchies producing psychology, individual personality. A weak nervous system can be a product of poor genes, or sheltering. An organ protected from stimulations above a particular level will be more vulnerable to stimulation above it. Like a muscle reacts to weight, or an eye reacts to sunlight when it has never experienced it above a muted level, like in a cave. Sudden exposure to a level above the habitual may damage the sense organ, and the nervous system. Hypersensitivity to ideas, is another example of sheltering. Prolonged periods of protection from reality, or a product of inferior tolerance to anything above a certain level of stress, are the foundation of psychosis. The mind shattered, stressed to its maximum capacity, if it is exposed to reality above the level used to within the sheltering controlled environment. consequences of too much "love", producing a child unable to deal with world. First contact may result ni a self-defensive retreat, after permanent damage has been absorbed. Suddenness of the effect is where damage is dealt. Gradual habituation, as that experienced through exercise, training, is best. A delicate frame, suddenly exposed to a heavy burden, may break its bones, and rip its muscles.
Much has been said about the aristocracy of strength and the ideal of obstinate will. Even more has been said about the creative influences of aggression and the progressive drives of violence and destruction. Setting aside our modern prejudices and our civilized sensibilities, for a moment, it would not be very hard to admit that, in general, it has been man’s basest nature and animal instincts – which have been labeled negative and deemed undesirable in more recent times – that are to be held responsible for man’s most exceptional discoveries and conquests. Western Civilization, in particular, owes much of its success and popularity to a foundation of unrelenting struggle, a spirit of competitiveness and a tradition of ruthlessness, arrogance and brutality. Instead of resisting self and denying natures dictums, in an effort to rise above them or become separate and indifferent to them, western man – except for those instances of external intervention by eastern philosophies and the effects of decadence – has been more inclined to accept reality as it is perceived and to embrace the totality of what it means to be a conscious, living being; science being just one more product of this western tradition. So, it should not astound us to discover that it has been a predominately western intellectual practice to expand upon the efficiencies of natural selection, the virtues of the Will to Power, the natural tendencies of Capitalism, the majesty of, what the Hellenes termed, “friendly competition,” the merits of scientific methodology, the beneficial consequences of, what some have aptly called, the Lucifer Principle, and to excuse any destructive consequences or remain unapologetic about the ramifications and their collateral damages. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, so it would seem prudent to aspire towards top dog status. Recognizing the rules, after all, is the first step towards empowerment, admitting them to one’s self is the second step and the next step, after that, is coming to terms with the implications. It has been curious, therefore, for me to discover that a dominant common characteristic of a mind blessed or burdened with heightened awareness, which eventually leads to this sort of evaluation, is this, sometimes, contradictory exaggerated sensitivity – what I once referred to in an earlier essay as Hypersensitivity – and this inclination towards compassion, reverence and sympathy, in contradiction to, the before mentioned, evaluations. The brightest and most interesting minds I’ve met, almost always, exhibited a profound over-sensitivity and a genuine, natural empathy towards all suffering and misery. It’s as if, this struggle for power and control, gained through knowledge, is improved or even provoked by a deeper understanding of misery and helplessness. Who better, then, can possess this connection to despair than one that has experienced it in one’s own life directly or that can, through imagination and empathy, connect to the wretchedness and powerlessness of another and experience it indirectly? Here is why much of what is called wisdom, is in reference to a mind that understands what torment and weakness is and that has found methods and systems of dealing with it. In my own compulsion to understand self and to analyze and control my environment and the sources of human rationality, I have acquired, as a side-effect, a deeper comprehension of human nature. I hope. I have been guided to the revelation that the root cause of all awareness and understanding is the ability to use imagination, with some degree of accuracy, which enables the mind to experience multiple perspectives without having to empirically experience them for itself. It is evident that, there are two methods of acquiring information: --The first is by personal experience, which places self in dangerous and precarious situations and is, by far, superior to any other, even if time consuming and inefficient. --The second is using observation, analysis and deduction of second-hand experiences, which unburdens the individual from many of the costs but can only provide a hypothetical and uncertain judgment, resting on a foundation of faith. But this second method, when used consistently, has a curious by-product, when coupled with a powerful imagination and an empathic disposition. It results in abstract reasoning. This abstraction of reality, or the ability to construct precise mental models of external phenomena, so as to analyze them spherically and completely from a distance, enables the mind to avoid the personal consequences of direct experience and it surpasses sensual, physical limitations, maximizing efficiency and effectiveness at the expense of accuracy and certainty. It also intensifies the minds capacity to become self-reliant, in the acquisition of reality and more independent in its production of belief. This gift is often called critical thought and is dependent on sensual sensitivity and mental flexibility. If it is sufficiently exercised and honed, this practice of extrapolation can even become more precise than the direct evaluations of a lesser mind’s experiential based deductions. Here we must recognize that no judgment can be thoroughly accurate and that all evaluations must, as Kant put it, find correspondence and a connection to external empirical phenomena, as interpreted by the mind through sensual representation. No abstract model can stand separate from sensual reality, for even the concept of self is the separation of sensual representations, what it called external, from intuitive mental processes and a priori concepts, what is called internal, realities. The differentiating properties of critical reasoning can be readily perceived in how a mind remains skeptical and uncertain about its constructs, even in the face of supporting evidence, whereas another remains convinced and absolute about things it only superficially perceives, despite the absence of any evidence at all.
My view is that what is most responsible for rampant brutality and cruelty or even for the opposing phenomena of rampant gentleness and kindness, is this mis-evaluation of what lies at the heart of all men, by individuals lacking the capability to empathize – a mind that is unable to place one’s self in another’s shoes and from there deduce and induce motivations and perspectives, is incapable of grasping reality in any way approximating completeness – or the ability to doubt and question itself to any degree, leading to an absolute certainty about one’s own perspectives. The determining factor for heightened perception is the effect of superior sensual receptivity and empathic interconnectivity which begins, in its early stages, with a veracious curiosity and an appreciation for minute detail. Those able to consciously perceive detail and include it in the construction of opinion possess an advantage over those that can only perceive detail unconsciously, giving rise to intuitions, feelings or premonitions, or that cannot perceive detail to a comparable degree. This because, one that is conscious of the totality of what participates in his or her judgments, has a better comprehension of the object or the concept being evaluated and judged, as opposed to someone sensing things without being able to explain how or why. I can only explain this appreciation for detail as a result of genetic predispositions which is nurtured through an environment of necessity. We can assume that a creature of the wild is more attuned to sensual details because its life depends on it whereas an animal brought up in captivity and relative safety is less sensitive, by comparison. This hypersensitivity often expresses itself, early on, in a profound gentleness towards all living things and a desire to defend and to protect the most vulnerable and misunderstood, since the first realization of a rational mind is its own limitations, vulnerability and its shared destiny with every other living organism. One becomes amicable to that which reminds it of its own hidden insecurities. From this starting position of heightened receptivity and interconnectivity comes the recognition of personal imperfections and the psychological fatigue derived from the struggle to come to terms with one’s own powers and the confines of one’s control. The world is not only a dangerous and unpredictable place but it is also indifferent to personal desires and hopes. The consequent pain and suffering, this leads to, and the inability to remain blind to it concludes, in those blessed or damned with the gift, in self-destructiveness, insanity or in an eventual exaggerated hardening of the spirit necessitated by self-preservation. I am convinced that many of the philosophical positions espousing and glorifying confrontation, struggle, viciousness and the acceptance of natural inclinations, are grounded in a deep frustration with mankind’s impotence and a reaction against the weight of exaggerated sensitivity. History’s greatest misanthropes have been sensitive souls that became disillusioned with mankind’s potential to become more than what it is and eventually came to realize that all creation is the result of the very things they abhorred. I would also claim that history’s greatest villains were the product of hatred towards the perception of weakness and helplessness in the self, projected outward to those representing extreme cases of it. For, what can be more disconcerting to awareness than the understanding that most altruistic, loving and compassionate ideologies are embedded in hypocrisy, selfishness and intolerance, and that there is nothing to be done about it, and what can be more distressing, to it, than the realization that pain and suffering are inseparable particles of what it means to be alive and, from which, only death can save us? One is torn, at once, by a sense of gratitude and ingratitude with existence. To what direction one leans, on the scales of thankfulness and cynicism, is determined by factors out of our control. Quite frustrating then, that it has always been those that have most vehemently proclaimed their own righteousness, benevolence and compassion, who have been the guiltiest of the opposite and ignorant about it, as well. There are temples, churches and various places for worshiping “good”, “loving” gods, filled with the vilest and most unaware amongst us and the greatest tragedies that have befallen mankind have all begun with “good” intentions. They, these simpleton absolutists, are the first and the loudest to declare their own “goodness,” humility and compassion in an effort, I suppose, to believe in it themselves or perhaps to disguise their innate vileness and primitiveness. I would say that, in contradiction to common belief, the most genuine emotions of love and of compassion, can be found in those most fervidly denying the truthfulness and purity of these emotions, as a reaction against the vulnerability this exposes them to and partly owing to the slandering of these passions by individuals incapable of appreciating them honestly, purely and to their fullest. It has also been those that proclaimed the gloriousness of war and the honor of battle, often displaying their willingness to prove their worth through artificial means of sporting events, digital simulations and extravagant verbalizations of machismo, which have been the guiltiest of ignorance concerning the realities of what they declared. Only a fool would admit to an appetite for violence when all it is, is a projection of inner frustration, defensiveness and fear when facing a potential threat. How appropriate, then, that those most often indulging in their primordial need for violence are the very ones that are the least aware of what this entails and the ones with the most to prove, through it. The road a sensitive soul must take is fraught with danger, temptations and entrapments. Yet, it is a necessary journey towards enlightenment. Here are the stages of enlightenment, as I perceive them:
First Stage – An awakening to the world of sensual detail and empathic connectivity. During this time the mind is struck by the callousness and brutality of the world around it and it seeks to sooth the troubled soul by offering guidance and help to those most in need of protection and nurturing. Empathy for others is an indirect projection of love for self through others and the understanding that the fates of all are intertwined in an unforeseeable future. All aware minds are differentiated from other, less aware, minds by the degree in which they are touched by pain and suffering in all things. The inability to cause harm to animals, for instance, is a characteristic of heightened sensitivity to the world around it, by a mind seeking a way out of its own vulnerability. This is the time when a mind is attracted to ideologies and utopian dogmas, promising much and delivering nothing. Communism, Christianity, Equalitarianism, Liberalism, Nationalism become the life-preservers a mind grabs onto in despair.
Second Stage – An awakening to the limitations and powerlessness of the self against insurmountable odds and uncontrollable and imperceptible forces. During this stage the limits of personal power are understood and the ensuing sense of helplessness and the consequent feelings of self-hatred, resulting in a desire to escape reality, either through death or through denial of need and self, come forth. This is the period where the aware mind seeks peace and solitude and emotions are perceived as undesirable distractions that prevent reason from finding an earthly salvation. Some find solace in nihilistic tendencies, of the Schopenhauer type, either through a Buddhist escape or a desire to cease to exist through suicide; some find solace in pre-existing ideologies and dogmas and embrace, what has been previously denied, in an effort to return to the first stage of naïve idealism and based on the hypothesis that all is probable if its impossibility cannot be proven absolutely; some turn inward in an effort to separate self from the world that is so vile and chaotic, often burying awareness by distracting it through fantasy or books or drugs or music or imagination separated from sensual perception; some literally seclude themselves – like Kaczynski attempted to do but failed in the end – cutting themselves off from the sources of their sensual distress. The sensual awareness of reality cannot be turned off, unless one uses artificial means, so one might attempt to limit the amount of information one is exposed to.
Third Stage – An awakening to the merits of callousness and indifference. During this stage, and if the previous two are survived and surpassed, the mind rebels against its own empathy and connection to the universe. The survival instinct kicks-in and self is placed on the pedestal of importance that was denied to it early on. This is the time when the recognition of worthiness is emphasized and one’s own empathy, compassion and love is carefully offered only to those that warrant such sacrifices to psychological wellbeing and free-will. This hardening of the skin should not be misinterpreted as an imitation of callousness and indifference of lesser minds that function instinctively and intuitively and with little understanding. The differences being in that here, and after all the stages have been passed, the ability of compassion and empathy and love still exists but are now doled out sparingly and with stricter criteria than the old “Love thy neighbor” because they become precious commodities reserved for only the few. Once the realization that the self is not like all the others and so redemption cannot be acquired in unison; that the mind cannot exist separated from its nature and the rules cannot be escaped by simply turning away from them; and that many living beings, particularly of the human kind, are really quit deserving of hatred and indifference, then the mind seeks out personal fulfillment and social interaction governed by reason rather than instinct. No longer do the pains and sufferings of all find a sympathetic ear in one who has discovered the real quality of the average man and who has come to terms with man’s overall character and with nature’s methods. Here I must mention, in conclusion, that we mustn’t misinterpret sensitivity, at least the sort I’m talking about here, as a kind of fragility or weakness, no more than we can call a man burdened with a two-hundred pound backpack feeble, when he buckles under the weight when his companion does not, under the weight of a one hundred pound backpack. Exceptional receptivity can become a useful tool and an advantageous attribute, but it can also become detrimental to the individual possessing it, threatening not only sanity but life as well. Whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, in this case, is a matter of perspective.
Addendum A matter of perspective. To the weak mind/body, what seems heavy, massive, is for the strong mind/body small and light. To a mind/body atrophied in sheltered circumstances, particularly during its early years, whatever inherited potential faces nurturing's underdevelopment (retardation, stunting) consequences. It is not guaranteed that one will survive stronger, what does not kill. correct quote is...
What does not kill me only serves to make me stronger
Such a traumatic experiences, the unforeseen impact of a threatening reality, may be survived, but the consequences will leave scars, damage so severe that it cripples the mind/body. When mind/body is shattered, returning to its original form ( health, its inherited structure) will be impossible.
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
In memory, an increasingly vague re-collection remains of what was. In re-collection the past is idealized, cleared of all negative collateral effects. memory is the storing, as code, of abstractions/noumena, already a simplification/generalization of the apparent. Distance of time, and of space recollects a purified past. When we look upon a forest, from a distance, it seems divine, clean, full of potential. We do not see the rotting cadavers, from ongoing struggles to survive, we do not feel the bug bites, we do not see the diseased branches, we do not smell the dying; we do not see or smell the feces littering the soil; we do not feel the anxiety of the unknown, being within it, in its midst of (inter)activity. In memory we stand as gods beyond what we re-collect, and as gods we create what is pleasing to us. Reality can correct our failing, self-serving recollections, because it is ongoing, it is present. What is not present falls into the clouds of reminiscence, towards Lethe.
The most discriminating, honest mind, cannot hope to gather all the pieces. Some small fragment(s) will be lost in the crevices of space/time - some damage left unhealed. Lost pieces to be replaced with our own manufactured substitutes - lost pieces to be filled in with ill-fitting parts. What is broken limps, the bone does not heal perfectly - even in strength thickness substitutes what was smooth and proportional. When skin is cut deep, the scar loses its feeling, the forms loses its symmetry - a re-minder of what was survived, if it is survived.
Consumer/Consumed Opposites attract only when one is attempting to feed a need, by assimilating what is weaker, breaking it apart, like in the process of digestion, to select what parts it needs, and expel the undesired, or when one is dissatisfied with self and wants to be assimilated by something/someone who will compensate for its own deficiencies.
Obsession, and addiction are found here.
Agape/Eros The similar attracts when one likes himself and his past/nature, wanting to find others, of his/her kind to cultivate their shared traits, principles, ideals - genetics/memetics.
Erotically, a female (and a male) loving herself, finds a male who is like her, to reproduce her traits. She rejects what is unlike her not wanting to dilute or destroy her own qualities.
When world stands in the way towards our goals, we deflate, shrinking to a size that will be undetectable, trying to slip through the crevices, or we inflate to a size that can help us step over what is blocking our path.
Natural Quality Detectors Women have evolved an innate resistance to pretense. When males evolved the ability to lie, to pretend, to fake it, so as to impress females and find a mate, their performance did nothing about the inferior genes they carried, and these were passed in using trickery. The gene of hypocrisy is part of the male’s sexual game. In the genetic conflict of male/female reproductive specialization, females had to evolve an intuitive lie-detector, and like many traits in nature, it needn’t be lucid, or precise, but only relatively effective. Female talent for detecting liars and pretentious wannabe's is part of their reproductive role, filtering out weak genes, preventing them from passing-on to future generations. Social memetic rules, enforcing a slackening of sexual options, made this natural ability less effective, like it took away a male's natural genetic advantages. Social conventions did not eliminate the genetic trait, they only blunted it. Females can still detect fakes, but they have fewer options, besides guile. Of course their inability to rationalize their intuitions still makes them susceptible to pretence.
Personal God In a post-God era, the average moron asks: "What is the best life?", and no longer receives an answer, except form the wannabe replacements Messianic Abrahamic echoes, and secular spiritualism. The answer is right in front of him: a personal, relationship with an indifferent, unconscious, objective world: subjective meets objective. World works in mysterious ways...but its most obvious voice is cost/benefit.
If the relationship is one sided, or out of touch, the world will most certainly not fail to make its dissatisfaction obvious. If the believer fails do humble himself, or show the proper deference, the consequences will be immediate.
What lie, what words, what ignorance or innocence will help him then, and for how long?
All it takes is to love the pain, to overpower those morons with their techniques and learned methods...like regurgitating Nietzsche. All it takes is to love the pain....physically.... mentally...in every which way. To feel alive in it.
When males are reduced to surrogate females, and made obsolete with techniques/technologies, what will be lost is the spirit of conflict, the anti-authority soul, that produced science and philosophy. What will remain will be organs with no bodies - service zombies.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
A cuckold externalizes his internal shame - he avenges himself against the ones that hurt him. He repeats his shame, unburdening himself from its weight. He casts another, his mate, in the role of his feminized spirit, and watches himself being used sexually by a stranger - usually some brute with low intelligence.
A feminized weakling must return to the one he surrendered to, was emasculated by, hoping to avenge himself against all those who, unlike him, never bowed down, were never seduced, or mind-raped. In the place of the one who seduced and abused him he will place a representation of the one who made him aware of his weakness, of his secret shame, and how he enjoyed the surrender, wanting to use this surrogate to accentuate the power of seduction, so that those who never surrendered will finally fall to their knees, and when this happens he will finally be free of his own shame.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Deluded Resentment of a born Victim A victim wants to victimize all, so that his own pain and suffering, and his own weakness and shame, will no longer be so obvious.
He studies his master to imitate what he submitted to. He studies the free-spirit to become a more masterly master - combining his own master's powers, the one he could not resist, and he integrates it with the spirit of those that got away from what he submitted to, the one who did resist, desperate to become a master over all, including those his own master could not dominate.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
It's difficult to take a Modern seriously, when he thinks someone is trying to tell him what he ought to do.
Truth is, nobody is trying to make him do or not do anything, all I, we, are saying is that we ought not stand in the way of the consequences of his choices, judgments. He ought to do anything he chooses, if we are not expected to pay on his behalf.
Costs/Benefits ought to be entirely upon him. Otherwise, he becomes an imbecile who thinks his choices have minimal costs, and that all judgments are equal.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mothers and Daughters Christianity had to distance itself from Judaism. It distinguished itself by claiming to be different. Marxism had to distance itself from Christianity. It distinguished itself by claiming to be different.
Will not a newborn daughter distance herself from her mother, if she hopes to be independent of the past, and make a name for herself?
New Shield Defeated warriors take away from the fight, if they survive it, scars, and bruises, but also experience. They then want a memento of their survival, and they craft armor and shield copying those the victor wore.
He returns to the battlefield wearing them, hoping he also absorbed the victor's spirit, symbolized by his new image.