A War Like No Other

Words are complex codes constructed by using simple symbols: letters, numbers.

Linguistic symbols, at least in western languages, represent sounds; vocalizations.
Mathematical symbols represent pure abstractions; concepts that can be used to refer to any phenomenon.

All words refer back to mental abstractions.
Language reduces them to sounds, which can be placed in succession to refer to the particular mental abstraction.
The mental abstraction is a construct which gathers sensual input, integrates them into complex models (the more sophisticated the mind the more complexity is possible), and then interprets them into ideas, or conceptions, or images.
Sensual input are stimuli, passing through the sens organ to the brain where they are interpreted into form, color, odor, texture, etc.
Essentially, the sense organ (inter)acts with a medium, an intermediate phenomenon (air, electromagnetism, water etc.) which has previously (inter)acted with the phenomenon being perceived.  
The medium transmits its own influence to the sense organ in the form of a pattern.
The intermediate medium is also a phenomenon displaying a pattern of behavior, (inter)activity, which the organism has evolved to use as a standard.  

The manner in which the brain interprets the sensual input, continuously streaming into it, is also evolved, tried and tested, and based on binary mechanisms - the simplest form of thinking.
Time - measurement of duration, based no metabolic, systolic/diastolic rates. Time measures change.
Change is the juxtaposition of mental abstractions exhibiting a divergence.  The degree of the divergence is part of the way the phenomenon is interpreted - therefore, less divergence would be translated as solidity, uniformity, substantiality etc.
Space - a mental projection of possibilities. Where no such projection is possible, given the data available or the quality of the brain doing the projecting, the interpretation is that of darkness, emptiness, void, blackness.
Form, shape, are the extent of sensual input. The extreme, ambiguous, ever-changing, limit of sensual perception. The point of contact, (inter)activity, between observer and observed.   
 
Mathematical symbols can also have a vocal component but they retain their abstracting essence more fully, as they are based no binary thinking (dualism), that can then be used to refer to just about any phenomenon.
When dealing with an object/objective, the shape, is defined by a surface which represents this point of (inter)activity between phenomenon (the apparent) medium, and sense organ.
With organics life the outer skin, shell, represents the organism's extreme, ambiguous, appropriation of possibilities (spatial dimensions) - as a representation (interpretation by the observer) of the aggregate energies comprising its Becoming (inter)activities. 

Words, and the languages it then produces as habitual codes, established as shared by a group, are symbols of a mind's interpretation of a phenomenon.
I would suggest that the particularities of words - their guttural, nasal, throaty, sonar, tonal, qualities - reflect a particular people's relationship to the particular phenomennon being interpreted.

Words are now the only thing left to us.
They’ve evolved from being an advancement in communal grooming and from being a sophistication in group dynamics into becoming a method of sucking a concept dry from all potential and, therefore, of deleting an idea’s significance.
Words are now how actions are made sterile via abstraction and endless repetition.
Words are how females compensate for their insufficiencies in a world that only allows for words and then, only some of them.
In a world of men, where one had to stand by his own words, there would be none of this endless prattle.
 
It is their ease (path-of-least-resistance) that lends them to the weak – those that now use them as a substitute for action with such carelessness that words lose all meaning.
Words can affect and infect, if one does not learn to read in between them; words can reveal and conceal, depending on the creativity of the one using them; more significantly words can be used instead of…
Words may be actions themselves but they are ones stripped of all substance; words are cheap and that is why they are ubiquitous and recyclable in this day and age; words are light because they have none of the weighty engagements they allude to.
Words, in and of themselves, are so empty of value that one can use them to express what he contradicts with his very deeds, and if caught doing so, one can pile on more words, waiting for time to deal with the remembrance…only to then return to the same activities in secret – the ones exposing one’s true nature - while mouthing-off ideals he can never live-up to because he never intended to, or had little understanding of what was demanded of him.  
Words can build image, they can “correct” what nature has wrought, they can give promises that cannot be kept and suggest connections that do not exist.
Words are timeless because they suffer none of the natural attritions the world forces upon what is more real; words are ethereal and magical; words are effete.   
Words are deadly weapons and magnificent tools when used by word-smiths - those with the artistry and the talent to shape them to their own will – but they quickly become ridiculous and vulgar in the hands or mouths of the incompetent and artless.  
Words can backfire, and are never forgotten, because they express an intent that has never been attempted; words are threatening and impotent, all at once.
Words are how men seduce women and women give themselves to men; words are how the game is played when nobody is obliged to stand by them or face the costs for having spoken them or who do not have to follow through with their insinuations.
Words, and how they are strung together, can either expose a mind’s inner order, intelligence, expose a deeper symmetry, outside outer appearances, or they can expose a mind’s inner turmoil, its chaos and its deeper ugliness.
Words are how words are drowned out, ignored, and perhaps this is why “free-speech” is such a popular post-modern principle.
 
Maybe it is the duty of a noble man to reconnect words with actions, so that these lesser spirits can no longer use them with such careless abandon; maybe the price of words should be reinstated, so that children and females do not succumb to the urge to utilize their impact with such recklessness.
In a world full of chatter maybe this can produce more quietness by imposing upon actions, including words, the price that would make most fall silent or face the consequences.

The power of the word lies in its ability to represent without having to refer this representation to anything outside the human skull; employed by the preachers to circumvent the troublesome sensual world that does not bend, so easily, to human hopes and dreams and lamentations.
For Christianity the word, logos, must come first, and truth can be found primarily through reasoning. Free from having to offer evidence, the mind can argue a point rooted in human fears and ignorance.
The word is all that is needed, and its’ mere possibility makes what is described with it a possibility itself.

Does the world care what you do in your head, or what world you create there, or what words you use to describe yourself and everything around you...or if you even acknowledged what is around you?
No, because the world is unconscious, indifferent, amoral, lacking ideals and finality.
You face the consequences of your own mind's creations or its inability to lie within reality.
In modern systems this leads to you being protected by the very institutions who then manipulate your desire to escape into your own head, your own words, and your own symbols, so as to make you a more productive automaton.
 
What does the deer care what you call it?
What does a thunderstorm care about you ignoring it or redefining it into a warm bath, or you leaping into your mind to avoid it?
Does it care?
 
No.
Only the conscious cares and it cares about what can improve its survivability.

Words have become so powerful in our time for three reasons.
The first is obvious: they are a form of expression, grooming, establishing and maintaining relationships, aiding in the effectiveness and efficiency of cooperative social unions.
Words can be transmitted across time and space, and so their reach, is powerful. This is why they have become the building block for memetic fertilization, transmission, control.
The second reason is because words are a natural progression from genetic to memetic expression. Their binary constructs naturally reflect brain functions and mental abstractions.
They reduce the complexity and indeterminacy of the phenomenon by cutting it away from the causal chains: it makes of the fluid into a static thing, which it can then symbolize with vocal or visual artistry.    
The third reason is that words are malleable, easy.
One can alter a word, or a phrase suing chains of words, when (s)he cannot alter the chain of causality being expressed using these words.
Words are so useful that they can refer to nothing other than what is imagined. That is, they can be self-referential, solipsistic, detached from sensual awareness.
Words offer the possibility for nihilism, as they can contradict the empirical, with the static, formal, absolutist, insinuations.
For a mind immersed in semantics there is no need for evidence outside the human skull, because words are proof enough that the thought must refer to a phenomenon which is possible, rather than to a phenomenon that takes the sensual, and then either recombines it into unities which have no sensual referent, or that totally contradict the phenomenon being sensed.
 
We live in a world of sheltering, which means that words ascend, while aesthetics decline in relevance.
What matters is the term, and how it makes us feel.
The words is taken literally, by unsophisticated, base, minds, because it is both easier to do so, and because by doing so the brain acquires the illusion of being master of its own domain. One can use words to construct any reality, if the sensual is ignored, dismissed, forgotten, or denounced, and only when there is a system present to shelter the mind form the natural consequences of being so delusional.
As such, words become the matrices of codes creating our artificial realities, when nature is excluded from the table of possibilities.
Words, then, lose all substance, and become toys to play with.
It does not matter how you use them, if what you are describing has no reality outside the one contained by shared definitions.
The term “love,” for instance, loses all value, when it is used casually, as a social tool, with no real cost.
Same goes for all words.
Once the word is detached from reality, it ceases to be severe. It no longer needs to refer to anything other than shared definitions, with shared motives and interests.
The word, now, is no longer a symbolic representation, expression, of an abstraction referring, itself, to a phenomenon, but it becomes a shared code, representing a shared lie, or a shared interest, or a shared delusion, that has little, if any, reference to anything outside the social time-spaces the users of the words exist in.
The motive becomes that of maintaining the codes which make coexistence and the artificial reality possible, and not exploring, assessing, and understanding the world beyond social and cultural and individual interests.
To this end, words are given particular emotional baggage, and/or, are reduced to their literal meanings, though this may be contradicted by sensuality.
Such minds prefer to believe in the power of the word, itself, rather than in its power to refer to a phenomenon; the power of tis utility and application.
 
The word becomes a more real reality. It is no longer artistic. It is rigid, unyielding, and always emotionally positive.
When the brains of the majority become contained in words, they can no longer think outside their current definitions and the emotional connotations attached to them.
Censorship takes on a sinister practice. It no longer restricts, but it infuses words with imagery, feelings, emotions, sensations.               

So obsessed with words, we’ve become, that they are no longer expressions of a hypothesis, an other’s perspective, but have become a declaration of an absolute truth.
We want them to proclaim a truth which saves us from the world, not one which describes it; one which soothes and comforts us, in relation to it, rather than one that reveals it in all its indifferent, cruelty.

Bible [John 1] wrote:

1 1-2 The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
in readiness for God from day one.

3-5 Everything was created through him;
nothing—not one thing!—
came into being without him.
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn’t put it out.

First, and last, the code is written, and it spells out a more favourable, preferable, reality; a way around the (inter)action, confronting the mind with its determining, indifference.
Reality reduced to a word, the representation of the brain functions forming it into an absolute, absent from all sensual awareness.
Best to submit to a knowable, demanding, but rational, thingness, rather than the knowable, uncaring, randomness language, originally, evolved to deal with.
Part of the “dealing with” is this negation of the world, with a simple word; a first, and a last word – the alpha and the omega.
The word becomes a metaphysical symbol for the emerging, ordering consciousness, of life.
The word, not as the method of (re)acting to the (inter)activity e call existence, but as that which precedes it, and makes it possible; the annihilation of the word’s evolutionary purpose, reborn as the projected source of all order and chaos.
The ancient Greeks consider “truth” – alitheia αληθεια – that which is revealed.
What is revealed is a degree of order, a pattern in the increasing chaos; one still fighting for dear life.
For the Christians, the monists, it became a reference to the “beginning”, that nebulous state of absolute order, from whence this Big Bang, this subsequent decline towards chaotic randomness, which made life possible, this anathema, was made possible.
They named it with a word: God.
The method became the absent absolute; the means became the end, and the end became the means.
A conceptual reversal perfectly reflected in linguistics.

The method used by the brain – a tool of survival – to navigate the flux, to make the unknown knowable, became a replacement reality; a more real reality.
With the emergence of life – an ordering confronted by the world’s entropy – we have the beginning of God.
But not a god in the Kazantzakis style – a god toiling and fighting and leading his army, us, against this decline towards chaos – but a God who hides, and plays, and contradicts Himself.
Not an imperfect, struggling Deity, but a prankster, a perfection needing – a contradiction in itself – an opposite so as to Be; a God of words, who stands against his nemesis, his Satanic, (inter)activity; a God that despises life, as it is produced in the necessity of pain and suffering, experiencing itself as nothing more than that; a charlatan God, promising an existence without its contingency; a god of semantics with no natural relevance – love, compassion, hate, salvation, existence…all terms with no purpose, exempt some adolescent ploy to weed out the wheat from the chaff , by an entity which creates and knows it all.

Words, now, become surreal.
There is nothing real left in them – the terms, detached from pragmatism, lose all value. They are stripped bare of all significance.
They become mind-numbing antidotes to a world that will not bend to their declarative “force.”

They are decrees, promises, definitions, with no pragmatic value – the reward is coming afterwards, once all is lost in death.
A gain via the highest cost: a life wasted in anticipation, potentials stifled by expectations – the “what if” as a “good enough.”
Pascal’s Wager minus the real-world loss; a beggar’s gamble.

Satyr wrote in General News Thread:

My views are my views, and whether others find them controversial, disturbing, or shocking, is of secondary importance...but I still get a kick out of weaklings and imbeciles being told what they have never been told before; at least not as clearly and, I hope, well-developed.

Satyr wrote in Words Thread:

Does the world care what you do in your head, or what world you create there, or what words you use to describe yourself and everything around you...or if you even acknowledged what is around you?

Like it or not, words are powerful. In the right hands, they can change perspective, save lives and topple empires.  

Consider the nefarious Joseph Goebbels, whose promotional efforts were seen as one of the key factors in Hitler’s rise to power.

Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote his books in Yiddish.  He said "the Yiddish language contains no words for weapon".  He was rich in humour.

Sartre, all brains, schemes, projects, isms and cults.  The very opposite of a free man.  

Anais Nin.  The prattle of a woman. "Everything can nourish the writer. The dictionary, new word, voyage, an encounter, talk on the street, a book, a phrase learned".  

Words can be adventures, open roads to rich plains ,where we can be swept off our feet by a book/words,  Innocence, soul, sincerity, victims, chemistry, submitting, simplicity.  Words  are conjurors of our desires, evidence of our limitations.

God and the word. The plainest reason why the son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so it was with him.   Mankind in general is still like the scum of the earth.  There are men like saints who don't practise religion and there are real devils in the flesh, here, existing on this earth.  I don't think we come from worms, caterpillars or fish life,  God made the world out of chaos and it wasn't given to us as a beautiful world, it was given to us to live and struggle in. It may be that we are doomed, that there is no hope for us, any of us, but who among us knows the answer to this and finally, Love.  Must it be one word or the other.  Agape or eros.  These two are comingled in an inextricable way.  There is no "one", only duality.

My earliest idol was Delacroix.  
I saw him once at a ball in Paris
Even at sixty he was lithe
Aristocratic, an untamed tiger
his feral gaze ravished the succulent ladies
Who dared his eyes.                  Confidences d'artiste 1910

"It is very human to see only through the language of the heart

and not at all monstrous"   It is not the words which are important, but what is behind them.

Indeed...
The word is to the meme what the sperm is to the gene.

As such, when I "ejaculate" my words, I care not if the other spits or swallows, or if she welcomes the seed or kills it with spermicides.

What I refuse to do is wear a condom so as to protect those poor ovum from my intrusions.

How the symbols of concepts can be reversed is a matter of social conditioning.

Take the terms conservative/progressive.
One denotes order, a fixation, a return to an earlier period of more order, as all is tending towards randomness (chaos).
Progressive denotes the shattering of all order, all categories, that stand in the way of change.

But change is constant and requires no effort, whereas order, as in life, is rare and requires constant effort.
Now the conservative, the one wishing to preserve change, which cannot be opposed, presents itself as "progress," when it is nothing more than a surrender to the status quo.


Take the term Nihilism.
To annul, to annihilate.
Now, it has come to mean a viewpoint that denies the meaning and purpose of existing.
So, reality is nihilistic, and the projection of a meaning, a teleos, a purpose to existing, is the "positive".
The unreal, is now considered a positive viewpoint, and its negation, in other words the denial that meaning and an end exists outside some vague mental conception, is the "negative."

With the presumption of meaning and purpose, the mind admits that it is not free, for meaning and an end impose a limit upon willing.
Ironically the very people who vehemently defend a simplistic version of free-will then propose concepts which negate it.
To deal with this contradiction some few, becoming aware of this, settle for the denial of freedom altogether.
Not that freedom is a matter of degree, requiring great insight (self-knowledge) and effort (self-discipline, work), because this would exclude the vast majority of them, but that it is impossible, across the board - equality in the negation of the positive, now considered positive because of the warm feelings it offers, the unity it describes and the uniformity it hides all divergence in.
It avoids the differentiating aspect of activity, and all becomes uniformly effortless.
 
If we are to hold that the will (focus of the organism's aggregate energies upon a projected object/objective), is to be in any way and to any degree free (independent from past, or future considerations which are not of its own creation), then we must do away with meaning and purpose and an end, for all these concepts are imposed upon the mind as necessary, pre-existing, projections, it must then adopt as if they were its own.
An imposition of an otherness upon the will's projections.

The mind does not create its own meaning and does not give itself purpose, which would be the definition of freedom, but it finds it pre-made, something it must discover as the all-encompassing, all-defining.
God made into an abstraction.
You will always find the secular humanist, the enlightened atheist evoking some meaning and purpose to life which is communal and popular within the time and the place (s)he is brought to life and raised into "maturity."  
Conveniently God's love has now become a transcendental, secular, Humanity, with a singular mind, and a singular definition, and a singular purpose: usually a coming end to suffering, death, disunity ...or, in other words, the end to the experience of life, to reality, to multiplicity.  
The same concepts acquire a more favorable feeling with an alteration in the terminology being used to symbolize them.

Take the term Modern.
Now it can only mean what stands against the post-modern.
Take the term ego.
It has been forever appropriated by Freudian psychoanalysis, and connected with the Buddhist denouncement, and with modern Judeo-Christian, self-hating, pseudo-selflessness.


Take the terms racism, sexism, homophobia ...part of the triad of shame.
No arguments, no rationale, no logic, no empiricism required. They are like holy water to the Devil: sprinkle it on whenever evil approaches, while you repeat the Lord's prayer; the one you were taught in school.


Take the term Morality.
There is only one application of the word, and it is THE one and only morality.

If you do not abide by this ethos, you are, by definition, a-moral, or immoral.

To oppose THE Morality is to have a moral stance against the absolute.
In this either/or dualism, the MORAL means only one moral system.
There is only this or nothing at all.

The term unique, is of particular interest, because it can be used in multiple ways.

It is sometimes used to indicate  detachment from what is determined , from the past - nature in other words - and so it lends credence to the term denoting the absolute, which is FREEDOM.
Freedom being the modern secular humanist version of God. The ideal, the common principle, in a culture which cannot help but behave in uniform ways.

God has his sin, to explain why humans cannot follow Him, Freedom has Sartre's terror, or ignorance.

Sometimes it is used to escape responsibility, as if being not accountable for the past makes you innocent of it.
Not that the past manifests in you, as you, but that you are other than it.

Sometimes it is used as a way of arguing for uniformity and equality.
All is a product of what precedes it, therefore all can trace their individuation back to a common ground ... or, there is nothing which is absolutely unique, therefore we are all equally not unique.
The act of creativity, as the recombination of what was into something which never was before, is denied power.
That some can recombine things which have existed in the past, though they were expressed in a different manner, is evidence of a pattern that crossed frontiers of time and space.
reality may be in Flux, but not to a degree where no patterns of repetitive consistency are improbable, because then life, being the product of such repetitive consistencies, would be impossible, and consciousness, being a forager of repetitive consistencies, would be impotent and worthless.

In these times of anti-nature (anti-past, anti-order, ironically used to produce a far more predictably uniform order, and anti-reality, ironically proposed by those professing to be empiricists, rational, and scientific), one would expect that, as Orwell, said, repeating the obvious would be a revolutionary, and controversial, act, and the responsibility of all intelligent men.

The modern mind wants to be a mystery. It wishes it were so complex that it cannot be understood using appearances, behavioral patterns, projected probabilities; this makes it feel violated, exposed, vulnerable.

If Spengler, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hume, repeated those same old insights we find rooted in ancient Greece and in ancient India and China, then it is to be expected in an age of irrationality and nature-denouncing nihilism.
Only in this age could describing the world as it is be called "nihilistic," and only in this age could  describing the world as it ought to be, or we think it is, underneath appearances, be called "positive."
But then, only in such a world of man, would a single species propagate to such an extent that it unbalances nature, by contradicting natural processes, in the name of something called "justice," or fairness, or humanism.


Take the term Daemon, form the Greek Δαιμονιο, a term describing the spirit of man, as the only organism that confronts chaos, the disordering.
Spirit now turned into something sickly, dead, not the living manifestation of the past, but something rotting, suffering in some state of limbo...ghostly.

Daemon now turned into Demon, the Devil ...evilness personified.
Man as something vile.
The ordering creativity of man, something to avoid, to run from, to despise.

Satyr, now turned into Satan ...horns and all.
The goat now used to escape reality - the scapegoat of modern man.
Not a spirit of nature, cruelly indifferent, honest to the point of pain...but something sick, vulgar, telling man what he does not want to hear.

We have here the rare member of the human species.
The one who cannot be understood using empirical data. Statistician raise their hands in surrender when they come across this rare breed of organism.
We cannot call it human, for this would impose a knowledge of its behavior based on appearances (aesthetics, empiricism), which is impossible.

Marketing has no effects on it; politics is unconvincing.
Empiricism lacks the tools to begin to fathom these beings and their motives.
Nobody knows what it may do from one moment to the next, because nobody can fathom the depths of its complexity, and observing its behavior is ineffective.

We might ask science to start a special branch for each and every one of these rare unpredictably, unique ones, but that would be a waste of time, for nothing can be understood simply by observing them.
In fact placing them in a group and referring to them as "them" is foolish on our part.
They are a Black Hole singularity in the observable Cosmos.

Sure, you might say:
"But predictable Satyr, man has always observed organisms, categorized them, and understood them, by finding patterns in their activities, in their mannerisms, and in their behaviors"

I would reply, predictably so:
"Yes, this applies to such simple creatures as you and I, but these are sophisticated organisms that cannot be judged by mundane methods such as behavioral analysis and experience."

Who can ever know what a frown means on the face of such a being?
Who can begin to unravel the complexities of its mind just by observing its activities?
Who can ever dare to seek motive in these complexities?

 

Has anyone tried to discuss anything with a feminine mind?

Predictably, unpredictable.


The tactics:


--- She remains vague, so as to always retain the escape of plausible deniabilty.
She will never state anything clearly, and succinctly, because this may place her in a rational corner, where she will be forced to make a stand or face the consequences of her own choices.
Such integrity is beyond her.
No, a female must always deal with the inevitability of her own irrationality.
She, unlike a man, will never make clear statements of personal conviction. She will refrain from being direct and honest.
She feels, though she will not admit it, how weak she is in the area of reasoning, and adjust her methods so as to appear more than she is.  
Her goal is victory, most of the time over a superior mind, and so she uses words not to clarify, but to cloud.

In this way, no matter how simple minded she might be, she can always pretend, particularly to herself, that she never meant what she is being accused of meaning ...but only if this is leading to what she realizes it a corner.

Her equality with males is built upon these strategies.
The average male is confused by her verbal acrobatics.  


--- To hide her own ignorance, she will always claim that the outcome was intentional.
No matter how confused, irrational, ignorant she might be, the outcome was always part of her plan.
In this way, no matter what challenges confront her, they become part of her grander scheme.  
She is never wrong, because no matter what happens it was predicted by her.

She is complex, but others are simple.
Their attempts to understand her predictably result in failure.


--- To escape reasoning, and arguments she cannot confront directly, she settles for the next best thing: the exception to the logical, rational, rule.
Whatever is stated, no matter how much it makes sense, she must always allude to the exception.
She may even opt to go outside space-time, in some beyond, hidden realm, to justify her own irrational viewpoints.

The mystery of uniformity being so unpredictable, cannot be rationalized ...it must be felt.

If knowledge is not absolute, if the other is not omniscient, then probability is the perfect ploy to insert the possibility of her exclusion.
No matter how improbable a hypothesis is, if it remains slightly possible, then it is reason enough to assume that she, or her preferred ideals, is its representation.  
 

--- When confronted by a viewpoint never before encountered, the female mind will always go for the jugular.
Attack as defense; the allusion to strength to deal with weakness.  
Imply that what challenges her ideals is not so unique, after all, and in this way implying that she has come across it before; it is old, overcome, dealt with, on her part.
She is looking ahead, progressive, new ...she is continuously renewing herself, and so nothing old can explain her, define her, contain her.
Nobody can manipulate her , because nobody can ever understand her.
Nobody can dominate her, or control her, because she is an escape artist.

Experience, knowledge is ineffective when it comes to her feminine mystique.
Why?
Because reason, logic, order, has no claim on her.
She thinks one thing, one moment, and another the next. she changes her mind continuously, not because she is flaky and quick to make superficial judgments that only hold true for short time periods, but because she is childishly spontaneous, not boxed in by any natural or man-made law.
Her power is found in her ability to allude it.
She is anti-order, anti-reason, anti-past, pro chaos, pro change, pro advancement towards the ensuing randomness.
Her will is free, her mind liberated, by her detachment from the past ...or so she thinks.
Nothing can explain her, no study of nature can make sense of her, no psychology school, no political ideal, no cultural construct, such as gender, can enslave her.
She is not contingent.    


--- A female is a master linguist...well most of them are so, in comparison to males.
Words are her social tools, her weapons, her grooming, her flirtatious baits of seduction, her fabric for weaving her mysteriousness.
In an age, such as this one, where words are all we've got, when culture is of the book, by the book, based on the Word of God, the code of civility, the unwritten agreement now written down, no actions can exceed the words.
Females are masters of linguistic ambiguity.
Say one thing, mean another; then say the same thing, and mean just that.
Context, vocal fluctuations, gestures, expressions, all have their place in the game of evasive maneuvers.
It is the vagueness of words, their sometimes reference to nothing outside the brain, which makes them perfect tools for masking her inadequacies.
To confront females you are limited to words, for the system limits actions and females are protected from the unforgiving clarity of actions.

To understand females you must delve into your own feminine side, and train yourself to use words as cleverly, artistically as females can.
To do so first understand what language is, how it works, what it refers to.

Also consider the motive. A language is a tool. How one uses a tool exposes motive.
A man can use a screwdriver to build or to kill.
The usage of the tool exposes the essence of the one using it.
Some use words to illuminate, to simplify the complex, others use it to cloud the world in shades, to make the simple appear more complex than it really is.    


And all of the above, and her conviction that she is complex, is what makes her all the more simple.

It is language's artistic nature that makes it so useful.
It may be used to become clear, to approach the real, as much as possible, but, like with all forms of art, it may also be used to escape reality, to distance one's self from it, to place a veil over the real, or to sweep it under the carpet.



Man tries to find in the fluctuating, increasing, chaos, patterns of consistent predictability - order.
With them he builds categories, philosophical wisdom, scientific insight.
The complex is reduced to a simple algorithm which can then be sued to predict all, or as many as possible, phenomena.

In the area of philosophy, the thinker tries to find a few underlying patterns of human cognition, so as to construct ideals, ways of acting (thinking being an activity).
This reduction of complexity, by a sophisticated mind, to a few simple, underlying, patterns, presented as wisdom, insights, transcendental truisms, is what makes certain concepts easily imitated and repeated.
The simpler mind comes across them already reduced to their most concentrated form, and having no ability to comprehend the complexities involved in the reduction, it settles for repeating the concentrated linguistic representation, as if he understood it.

In this way Nietzsche's Will to Power, Freud's ego and id, Christianity's God, can be disseminated within a population that need not know about the complexities involved, but only learn and repeat the condensed form of the concepts in the form of a few phrases, and then repeat the defensive arguments in their support, without truly comprehending the relationships or the underlying structures involved.

This can result in the illusion of parity, or of understanding what is known.
The simpler mind having come across the phrases, and the words used to construct these phrases, alluding to simplifications of what is complex, becomes dismissive or convinced, without really knowing why or how.    


 
 

What is most intimate is what has the potential of being the most known, and then understood.
This is how know Thyself reveals itself as a motto describing self-consciousness, and the self-discipline, and self-love, this may lead to.

But when the motive is not to clarify, to bring into the light, but it is to hide, to obscure, to darken, then what is most intimate, most knowable, it defined as the most complex, so as to hide its simplicity, relative to the unknown, alien.
It is the one who feels violated, vulnerable, by this coming into the light, this disclosure of essence, of spirit, of nature, which are the first to declare the complexity of what is the most knowable.
It is the simpler ones that hide their simplicity behind declarations of complexity, or of not fitting into any category.  
It is the one who is afraid of being seen, of being understood, who is quick to declare himself far too intricate to be known through appearances.

The aesthetic, which includes the phenomena of movement, activity, behavior, is denied validity, in all areas except those which approach the intimate.
To preserve the possibility of equality, or an ideal, or superiority, the mystery has to be reinforced. What is to be protected must be made into something mysterious, mystical, magical, so as to not lose the power over us, and the benefits it offers us.
Complexity, or the illusion of it, is exaggerated, so that the possible remain open to any hypothesis.
to know and to understand is to reduce complexity to make the otherness more predictable...and this is not desirable when the ideal of parity is to be defended from prying eyes.
The mythology of sameness can only maintain itself in multiplicity when a secret thing-in-itself, some beyondness, some other-worldly, outside space/time, possibility remains part of the possible.
Without it the mystery dissolves before the light, the ideal, if it is disconnected from the real, and is meant to provide an escape from it, loses its power of persuasion.
The Christian God could only be plausible in a world of ignorant, illiterate, fear possessed, masses. His mystery fails to inspire when man sheds light upon natural processes.

Same goes for sex and race issues.
It is only because man is complex and genetics so mysterious, that no definite conclusion can be made concerning races, or sexual specialized forms.
Experience, common sense, loses its power when the social and cultural elements are added in to cloud thinking and produce reasonable doubt.
Disparity is blamed on social conditioning and cultural effects, so as to avoid the probability that culture is a product of genetics, and not the other way around, and that only so much can be excused away using the same possible hypothetical reasoning.

Glass ceilings and systemic bigotry an go so far.
They insert an added layer of complexity to hide the real, but they cannot do so without at the same time producing contradictions in their own reasoning.
Instead of wanting to illuminate the human condition, they want to hide it beneath artificial complexities.

We are in a war.
No, not a hot-war, but a continuation of the Cold War.
The alliances have shifted, the goals have slightly changed, but the motives and the methods are the same.

A cold war is a mimetic war.
Genes participate as the foundations, but they are fought over the hearts and minds of populations, and resources, territories, females, are all collateral gains and/or losses.
Like all cold wars this one will also have sudden hot-spots, where it momentarily spills over into genetic battles over resources, geographic territories ... body to body, instead of mind/idea, against mind/idea.  

And, like all wars, they are inescapable.
You may run from them, try to hide, ignore that they are occurring, but in their turbulent to and fro they will sweep you away.    

In this thread I want to explore the many manifestations of this war of ideals.
 
It's not surprising that the same players are still involved.

We can trace back the participants to the First world War, but even further back, to the American Civil War, the French Revolution, the Crusades.
Perhaps further back still: Persian-Hellenic War, the Exile of the Semites from Babylon...

The fundamental players, though, are the ideals themselves.
They are birthed within particular populations, living within particular environment, but they evolve, and spread, and dominate or are absorbed.
Ideals that infect human minds, directing them towards objectives, towards morals and principles, towards world-views, and ways of living.
Ideals that direct behaviors, and ways of thinking, and worshiping, and evaluating and Becoming.

The way I see it, one side is everywhere victorious. The other side, if there even is an other side, usually does not even know it is fighting: it has no comprehension of the malice directed at it.

Even when two niggers murder a man on the street, and hang around afterwards to lecture the passersby, shamelessly... even then it is swept under the rug, not thought about, ignored.

They like their somnolence. They prefer it.

A disconnection with this civilisation must be made. Let it die. It can't be salvaged.

True, this war is subtle, sometimes reaching heights of paroxysm, and the "one side's" minions have no clue, because that's part of the method, the meme involved there: unconsciousness, living in bliss.

i would not say one side is victorious as there is only domination and then decline. It is in decline.
The last statement by the Turkish Prime Minister about Israel's involvement in the Egyptian situation is showing cracks in that alliance.  
Add to it Germany's small defiance, Russian's increasing arrogance, and the Snowdon affair, and we have clear indications of a decline in prestige.
This is, after all, on an intellectual plane, where prestige is important.

That people like us exist is also a reason for hope.

Quote :

"Insofar as the individual wants to maintain himself against other individuals, he will under natural circumstances employ the intellect mainly for dissimulation. But at the same time, from boredom and necessity, man wishes to exist socially and with the herd; therefore, he needs to make peace and strives accordingly to banish from his world at least the most flagrant bellum omnium contra omnes [War of everyone against everyone —Tr]. This peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive: to wit, that which shall count as "truth" from now on is established. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time. The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real. He says, for example, "I am rich", when the proper designation for his condition would be "poor". He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. If he does this in a selfish and moreover harmful manner, society will cease to trust him and will thereby exclude him. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception. It is in a similarly restricted sense that man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences; toward those truths which are possibly harmful and destructive he is even hostilely inclined. And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?

It is only by means of forgetfulness that man can ever reach the point of fancying himself to possess a “truth” of the grade just indicated. If he will not be satisfied with truth in the form of tautology, that is to say, if he will not be content with empty husks, then he will always exchange truths for illusions. What is a word? It is the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus. But the further inference from the nerve stimulus to a cause outside of us is already the result of a false and unjustifiable application of the principle of sufficient reason. If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say "the stone is hard", as if "hard" were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation! We separate things according to gender, designating the tree as masculine and the plant as feminine. What arbitrary assignments! How far this oversteps the canons of certainty! We speak of a "snake": this designation touches only upon its ability to twist itself and could therefore also fit a worm. What arbitrary differentiations! What one-sided preferences, first for this, then for that property of a thing! The various languages placed side by side show that with words it is never a question of truth, never a question of adequate expression; otherwise, there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (which is precisely what the pure truth, apart from any of its consequences, would be) is likewise something quite incomprehensible to the creator of language and something not in the least worth striving for. This creator only designates the relations of things to men, and for expressing these relations he lays hold of the boldest metaphors. To begin with, a nerve stimulus is transferred into an image: first metaphor. The image, in turn, is imitated in a sound: second metaphor. And each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one. One can imagine a man who is totally deaf and has never had a sensation of sound and music. Perhaps such a person will gaze with astonishment at Chladni's sound figures; perhaps he will discover their causes in the vibrations of the string and will now swear that he must know what men mean by "sound". It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things — metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities. In the same way that the sound appears as a sand figure, so the mysterious X of the thing in itself first appears as a nerve stimulus, then as an image, and finally as a sound. Thus the genesis of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never-never land, is at least not derived from the essence of things." [Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense]

The entire Arab Spring served to eliminate Israeli opposition in the middle east and replace their governments with Western puppets. Not too long ago, the US declared that if Israel went to war, it would follow - effectively allowing Israel to declare war for the US.

It's clear where the power lies, to Americans. If they question this they are quickly reminded of the holocaust and obligingly shuffle back into line.

To reverse the trend would require a fascist state, mass deportations, de-feminization, a reversal of the value of racism and nationalism, revitalized birth rates, retaking of control of the media and financial system... too much to achieve.

This war is fought using ideas, concepts, words.

The battlefields are on T.V., in the movies, on the pop-charts, in newspapers and magazines.

Weapons are not used.
The only ones used are repetition, emotional manipulation, Pavlovian training, self-censorship, shame.

A few things you might notice at some point:


1. Digital tracking aka "burning ants with a magnifying glass".

Think, and BE like a river.



2. Your body is a melting pot. Ingredients come from different sources.


You have to understand what makes you healthy and what kills you.

I wouldn't touch any food from supermarkets and chains of coffee shops. Definitely the food sold in big supermarkets is much more acidic then ever before, especially drinks and juices.


I go to farmers market. I bought a juicer and use only fruits which I buy from selected growers and importers.


Try, buy the most cheaper juicer, but try.


apple + carrot

apple + lemon

green juice


Usually I make a container of apple juice, a container of carrot juice, a container of orange+banana juice, a small glass of lemon juice, a tiny glass of ginger, and a container of green juice.

This way I can make my preferred mixture and my gf can use the ingredients to make her drink.



3. "Health" system. Incredibly stupid doctors.


I don't know if this is already happening in your communities, but where I live (99% are white people) suddenly all doctors are BLACK.

White women are receptionists, doctors are black women. No one single man.

I mean, WTF?

Here's how it looks:
A stupid cow, who doesn't know shit, is telling you what the computer says.

Kind of: You said this, let me check. Ah, you see, the computer says to take this.


That's all. End of story. No clue what to say when I ask basic questions.

No, don't ask any questions because "I'm not supposed to spend more than a few minutes on you."


The machine is employing primitives who do what they are told to do, and that's not just my opinion because my gf, our neighbours and their friends noticed the same thing.

Thirsty wrote:

Usually I make a container of apple juice, a container of carrot juice, a container of orange+banana juice, a small glass of lemon juice, a tiny glass of ginger, and a container of green juice.

What's green juice? Cucumber + Spinach?
Carrots and oranges go better.

Once you are made conscious of what is happening, the signs emerge all around you.
You never noticed them because you had not learned the language.
The methods are not subtle, and are increasingly becoming bold, but when one is educated to interpret the signs - language being a communication method using signs - in a particular way then the narrative maintains its cohesion. 

Lyssa, in another thread said this, us9ng the post-modern film World War Z, as an example:

Lyssa wrote:

I was watching World War Z some weeks back. What does one do when parasitic zombies start attacking? The film's solution was "make yourself sick"; because parasites only attack healthy hosts.
The way to avoid parasites is to become ill oneself.

To the mind infected with the disease this film is nothing but a trivial, two-hour, escape.
Others feel inspired by its message of a world-wide government fighting against a world-wide infection. 

For those who have had their eyes opened, their minds disinfected, this becomes a communist parable.
What are the zombies and what do their represent?
Mindless, consumerism - the brainless appetites of materialism and hedonism unleashed in a population that must be turned into a thoughtless, instinctive, herd. 
We see the symptoms in the U.S. where this infection has been the most successful, having nothing to slow its spread down - like culture, a shared heritage, family. 

What does the film suggest as a cure?
Here we see the Cold War dynamics still in play - this internal war over hearts and minds where both sides are offering a different variant of the same nihilism. 

Lyssa exposes the "cure". 
To fight the disease of materialism and hedonism one must make one's self ill.
It is sickness that can preserve the individual from illness.

No, not health, but sickness can save you from this sickness.

World government is the savior. 
Mankind finally becoming one, under a supreme authority.
One of the most successful bastions of this humanity?
Israel, where the chanting of the unwanted threatens it with a horde invasion.


The individual is either a mindless eating, instinctive, machine, rotting because time is degenerating it, or it surrenders to the collective, finding identity in the mass, sacrificing self, to a greater Self which never grows old and never, presumably, rots. 

But the zombies can recognize their own kind, and so when infected the one who just committed suicide, is recognized by the mindless flesh-eaters as one of their own: fellow Nihilists.

The internal, civil war, continues.
The dualistic lines make sure no alternative enters the fight.
You are either a mindless mass of need, obsessed with satisfaction, or you kill yourself, and become part of an Ideal Self, Humanity, where your mindlessness will at least never die.

Satyr wrote:

Once you are made conscious of what is happening, the signs emerge all around you.
You never noticed them because you had not learned the language.
The methods are not subtle, and are increasingly becoming bold, but when one is educated to interpret the signs - language being a communication method using signs - in a particular way then the narrative maintains its cohesion.

Yes.

Quote :

But the zombies can recognize their own kind, and so when infected the one who just committed suicide, is recognized by the mindless flesh-eaters as one of their own: fellow Nihilists.

The film called it "Camouflage". Blending-in has been an age-old scheme with them...

Paul wrote:

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” [Corinthians, 9:20-22]

Quote :

The internal, civil war, continues.
The dualistic lines make sure no alternative enters the fight.
You are either a mindless mass of need, obsessed with satisfaction, or you kill yourself, and become part of an Ideal Self, Humanity, where your mindlessness will at least never die.

You define the cold-war perfectly.

Lyssa wrote:

Thirsty wrote:

Usually I make a container of apple juice, a container of carrot juice, a container of orange+banana juice, a small glass of lemon juice, a tiny glass of ginger, and a container of green juice.

What's green juice? Cucumber + Spinach?
Carrots and oranges go better.

Here's my today's breakfast.

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

If there was only one thing I could recommend my family, I would tell them to reduce the amount of fat they consume and start drinking this kind of mixtures asap.


About three weeks ago my girlfriend's colleague told her that his wife has lupus and is dying after giving birth to their forth child.
She was so weak that she was not able to hold a cup of tea in her hands, not to mention things like going to the bathroom. The doctors told them to prepare for the worst.

We immediately put her on new diet. She's been drinking about 3-4 litters of the juice every day.

Yesterday, my girlfriend told me that her colleague is back to work, apparently his wife looks great, has energy, walks and cleans the house, and takes care of their four kids when he's at work.

Doctors, bloody hell... this is just ridiculous how stupid some of them are.
Satyr has a good word for those creatures - imbeciles.


Anyway, this stuff works. You just have to have an idea to exchange your body fluids, not to have a glass of juice from time to time. So you know that you have to drink a lot and it's going to take some time.


It's a beautiful, fresh and very clean life.

BUT there is one magic trick...



You have to do it.

Thanks Thirsty; I do this.

Had never heard of lupus; amazing how natural vitamins can be so vital and restorative.

One more is taking in gooseberry juice with pommegrenates. Gooseberry juice or even gooseberry candy has been regarded medicinal and 20 times more beneficial than taking oranges.
Give it a try.

Satyr wrote:

We are in a war.
No, not a hot-war, but a continuation of the Cold War.
The alliances have shifted, the goals have slightly changed, but the motives and the methods are the same.

Not sure if it should be over-simplified to this extent, although I can agree with the overall drift...

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

When observing a group of monkeys do not be surprised if your trope is mis-taken for their troop.
Being observed, once the initial anxiety passes, becomes a joy for the ones who wish to be seen, but not too deeply.
Your interests, like gazing into one's eyes, may, at first, be a source of anxiety. then, once time passes, and no perceived harm has been done, the gaze turns to desire; the monkey begins to look back, wanting to see itself in the reflection.

It's only when the initial gaze has taken a nasty turn that the mind behind the gaze must be made a monster to be blinded or hidden from.
His stare turns to flattery, and insecurity becomes an accusation.

Immanent Perfection

The variations of the “best,” the “better,” world are only limited by the human imagination.
Imagination detached from reality, and totally committed to need, can create, using the perceived, any combination, any reversal, any possibility unbound by probability, its desire directs it towards.
Although associated, most often, with an enlightened state of mind, such a projection of the desired is really a return to the primal. The mind returns to tis first and primary role: that of meeting needs – that of servicing the organism’s needs. When it finds the world, reality, unyielding to its requirements or itself not up to the task, the mind creates the circumstances within which the world is altered to where it does yield and the organism is up to the task.

This is a prerequisite for the creative drive.
The first step is to think that the world is malleable and that the mind and the body it serves is capable to altering it.
But, if the mind is exaggerating its place, and if this exaggeration has been nurtured within an environment where it has been sheltered, then both tis assessment of the world and of the self, are suspect.

A child having little experience with the world, still immature and under the care of tis parents, can imagine any possibility and consider it factual; it can immerse itself within its own fantasies, because it is protected from a world that cares not.
Therefore, imagination unhindered by any concern, avoiding correction by reality by some intervening force, can detach its imagination from the immediate.
The only other way this detachment can occur in a more mature mind, with more experiences with the world, is when the world has caused such trauma, is threatening it in ways it cannot deal with, that it now reverts back to a child-like state to protect itself, by turning away, and placing its’ fate on blind hope.


Paradise is the fantastic given through words, to those who need it in order to cope with a reality which is intolerable to them.
Utopia is paradise minus the Deity, and the ancient script. Both are replaced by technology, technique, an application of the code, in real time, correcting, hiding, replacing the natural with a human artifice.

The beyond is replaced by the immanent, the coming future, taking over from the coming end.
The word replaced by the number, the numerical symbol for quantity. The foundation is still linguistic, only more abstract.  
The change from word, symbol derived from the apparent, to number, the word abstracted to the point of pure symbol, makes it possible to abandon the notion of a “beyond”, an outside space/time; it makes it possible to (re)place the divine, the absolute(reposition it), now placing it as an underlying, a hidden, applicable to all and everything, in the same unifying process, where the absolute is reduced to the one, with the nil being its negation.
Once the hidden, the presumed, the abstraction, has been given a positive, static, value, then the apparent, the dynamic, is relegated to the binary opposite position of the nil.
The ideal is now more real than the real.    

To speak, using these “positive” words, these detached symbols, is opposition to this, would make you a pessimist, given that any description of the real, as an absence of an absolute, as dynamic, fluid, has already been symbolized by the nil.
The realist is, now, a nihilist, and the true nihilist, the one who rejects the world replacing it with symbols, codes, words, is now the positivist.