Indifference

This started with this thread over at ILP:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr has been responding to me in his locked thread he calls "Satyricisms".

So I started this thread in order to discuss these things on this board.

Here's something I wrote over at ILP, as a response to Satyr:

Quote :

What does it mean to be indifferent?

There are many ways to define the concept, but in all cases, there is a usual scenario.

You are faced with an object and this object either provokes a reaction in your body or it does not.

The simplest way to define indifference is by the amount of reaction an object provokes in your body.

If I see an ant, for example, I won't give a shit to such an extent that I won't even register it, because the little ant poses no threat to me and promises no satiation of any of my needs.

If I face a lion, on the other hand, I'd probably be scared to death since he poses a threat to my life.

You can say that I am indifferent to ants but not so much to lions.

But this is only half of the story, and to remain on this level of understanding of the concept of indifference is to betray how shallow your thinking is.

Beside reactions there is also such a thing as will.

Will is responsible for maintaining our focus, which is to say, for making sure that our drives are aligned with each other all of the time.

Though I may react to a lion, my reactions can be indifferent, if they are controlled, or emotional, if they are uncontrolled. In the first case, I remain focused, in the second case, I lose the focus and become emotional/hysterical/panicky/etc.

Here, it is courage that establishes one's indifference, and not one's reactions. If I am courageous enough, I can stand in front of the lion and die if it has to be. Reactions, here, aren't absent, they are present, but dominated by the will.

All indifference starts with indifference of courage and only later, through a laborious process of mastery, and as a consequence of over-learning, becomes an automated indifference. You are indifferent simply because there is nothing having an impact on your focus.

In both cases, it is focus which is the central concept.

Now take this logic and apply it to women.

Satyr wrote:

A man who is indifferent to a lamb indicates either that he has eaten, or he has a herd of lambs in his barn.
It is not because he is focused.
How absurd.

What is absurd, you imbecile, is your inability to understand what the other is saying before you respond to it.

Yes, imbecile, this is precisely what I meant, you are absolutely correct, you are never wrong, and even less so in this case, and what I meant, but I am denying that I meant it, is that when men do not react to lambs this is simply because they are focused. This is what I meant, please do not change your mind. You are correct, remember?

Quote :

A man indifferent to a particular female, is an indication that he has many other options to gratify himself sexually, not because he is focused. What is he focused upon, his masturbation?

He is focused upon your fat arse, that's what he's focused upon, you dumbass. This is what I meant, you are correct, do you remember that?

Quote :

A desperate man, whatever the source of his desperation, is a man who has been taken over by his need; it has dominated his conciousness.

So now we're getting somewhere, aren't we? Need interacts with the rest of the brain, you imbecile, and it is this interaction, and not the need itself, that determines whether one becomes desperate or not.

Focus, in this case, means controlling your needs. You have not understood my terms and are simply making a fool out of yourself.

But you are correct.

Quote :

Focus is the mind totally engrossed by an object/objective...need can focus your mind.
A sexually frustrated man is obsessed with a woman, he is focused upon her, because he has no other options.

His focus is weak, you imbecile, do you know how to make a difference between strong and weak focus? Do I have to explain this shit to you?

Quote :

Keep disagreeing with me just to prove to the chimpanzee you are not part of my cult...when we both know that you are under my spell.

I am under your spell, there is no doubt about that. And the only reason I am disagreeing with you is to prove to myself, as well as to the chimpanzee, that I am a free-thinking individual, and not simply someone who parrots Satyr's ideas.

Again, you are correct, you are the winner, you win all of the prizes in the world.

A man who is indifferent to lambs indicates that lambs have no impact on his focus. But it can also signify a weakening of his focus . . . there is no unique association here.

Oh, but I am using the word "focus" and the word "focus" is apparently too problematic for satyrs.

Maybe I should use a different term, like order, maybe he will get it then.

When it comes to women, what is thought of as 'indifference' is not indifference about the woman but indifference about her own objectives as a subject.
Man who is perceived as 'indifferent' by a woman is not indifferent about her in relation to his own objectives but indifferent about her own objectives.

Who is making the plans; Who is part of who's plan; Is the lion part of the plans of the lamb or is the lamb part of the plans of the lion?

Sometimes the lion will be indifferent about the lamb for various reasons but he is always indifferent about the lamb's own plans. The lamb is not indifferent about the lion's plans.

[It] requires organization to write a poem, or musical piece or artwork or some other thought process or other, some other form of artistry of will, which at the crux could be, perhaps only locally, that is, a facade for some yet explanatory impetus, in either reactivity or proactivity to a woman or other nature, which indifference would in actuality be in order to order or focus one's difference or vice versa.
Therefore, it would be to determine on a variable scale at which mark indifference suspends difference and where difference precedes indifference: this is an indefinite definitive, a finite infinitive, or a cacalulated incalculable which can be procedeed only through context of what is to supersede; a clause of causes.

If you say: "what the fuck are you even talking about," then I'd wonder the same along with you. I'd say: "I already know that."
Then what would you say?

Satyr wrote:

For a boy wrestling with his dad is fun, it cultivates its self-esteem, it makes it feel powerful, but for the dad it is a game he must endure, for the boy's sake, because he gains little from it.

Foreseen Retort: by valuing the boys enrichment, he subsequently values the act of wrestling,  even if he is indifferent to it generally and there are other options, his focus is on enriching the life of the child, moved/split toward wrestling as well to acquire that end.

Fundamentally I see a problem on the horizon with distinguishing between "drives" and "reactions"... supposedly one is innate to humans or taken for granted and another utilizes those innate drives (objectives/goals we experience viscerally, maybe. Like hunger, survival, etc.) to determine their reactions to certain stimuli... then you measure the reactions to judge the amount of indifference.. low frequency of reaction being indifference and high frequency reaction being the opposite (emotional apparently, to Magnus).

Satyr wrote:

The boy confuses the ruse, the imitation of indifference, for indifference itself.

I intuitively saw this as an issue. I've been wracking my brain over how to say it in a way that makes the critique obvious... even to him. I'm still going to try, it's good practice, I think, for my own particular ends... Actually the whole post this excerpt is taken from does an okay job, I'm just a lot more technical in my approach..

Magnus Anderson, you are using the word "focus" to mean self-control. It's possible, but a stretch. Satyr's use of the word as in "degree to which the organism can wilfully direct these aggregate energies, is called focus, and it is dependent on self-control", is more similar to the dictionary definition and the actual usage of the word.

It seems to me that MA and Satyr agree about almost all of the conceptual relations, just not the names they ascribe to them.

But it's obvious that MA has some other issues with Satyr other than the discussion about focus.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Magnus Anderson, you are using the word "focus" to mean self-control. It's possible, but a stretch. Satyr's use of the word as in "degree to which the organism can wilfully direct these aggregate energies, is called focus, and it is dependent on self-control", is more similar to the dictionary definition and the actual usage of the word.

It seems to me that MA and Satyr agree about almost all of the conceptual relations, just not the names they ascribe to them.

But it's obvious that MA has some other issues with Satyr other than the discussion about focus.

Expand...

It has to do with the chimpanzee taunts, which seem to have affected the boy.
He had to prove himself my equal, or above me, as it seems, so he contrived some half-assed disagreement to prove how much of a "man" he is, and how independent from my, presumed, cult he is.
he took the bait from a retard, who is a subjectivist in that everything is arbitrary, a perspective, with no reference to an objective, shared reality.
so, if two minds agree, having accurately perceived the same damn world they are a part of, then they are a cult, and must disagree to prove that they are free-thinkers.
And, it's not like I did not already give a definition of what Modern Nihilists think like in regards to[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So, changing your mind, even if the world does not change at a rate that would demand constant updating - the world, not the world of man...and you must disagree, no matter how much sense the other is making, simply to assert your will, though it may expose you as foolish.
I'm not ashamed of agreeing with Nietzsche, or Heidegger, or Evola, or Spengler or many others to varying degrees...nor do I consider myself under their spell, or submissive to them, or part of their cult, nor am i compelled to disagree just to disagree.
I am not that stupid.
They saw, what I saw, and what I continue to see. We were all honest, courageous enough to speak out despite the Nihilistic conventions, and, excuse my arrogance, smart enough to not fall for the simplest arguments...just as many are on KT.
Apaosha made this place for people like us, and I agreed to moderate it because it is what it is - an island of honest, lucidity, in a sea of bullshit, nihilistic tripe, and an ocean of retardation, cynicism, simplicity, cowardice.


All that remains is to see how all this pans out.
I am curious, myself.

"All indifference starts with indifference of courage and only later, through a laborious process of mastery, and as a consequence of over-learning, becomes an automated indifference. You are indifferent simply because there is nothing having an impact on your focus." Magnus Anderson

"Focus is the mind obsessed, possessed (self-possessed), not indifferent to the particular.
Focus is the opposite of indifference.
When I focus upon an objective I am complete taken by it, not indifferent to it.
To focus inwards is to be taken by self.
This produces a state where besides the object of focus, everything else falls away, it is not perceived.
The mind aggregate energies are totally dedicated by this singular phenomenon. It is not indifferent to it, it is the opposite." Satyr


I see a connection between MA and Satyr's concepts. Satyr's quote (see above) disproves what MA is saying up to a certain point, that is, "all indifference starts with an indifference of courage", here, I would agree with Satyr that this potential courage, the fact that it is needed, implies the opposite of indifference...

However, right after, I think MA's idea runs back on track, that is, the point at which the indifference is automated, I see this stage as an evolution of the organism, a physiological and psychological change occurs during the process of mastery, a higher state is reached and is sustained at the particular level which previously required focus, self-control, or énergies to remain at.

I was interested in this exchange, or what I thought will become of it, but it appears that MA is gone without a trace.

Is he preparing a superior rebuttal?
Does he think he's been pushed into a corner and can't salvage his argument anymore?
Or has he become... indifferent?

My personal opinion is, he made a minor mistake in reasoning but due to enormous pride and ego he isn't willing to admit it, so he's gone for good.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

What does it mean to be indifferent?

There are many ways to define the concept, but in all cases, there is a usual scenario.

You are faced with an object and this object either provokes a reaction in your body or it does not.

The simplest way to define indifference is by the amount of reaction an object provokes in your body.

If I see an ant, for example, I won't give a shit to such an extent that I won't even register it, because the little ant poses no threat to me and promises no satiation of any of my needs.

If I face a lion, on the other hand, I'd probably be scared to death since he poses a threat to my life.

You can say that I am indifferent to ants but not so much to lions.

But this is only half of the story, and to remain on this level of understanding of the concept of indifference is to betray how shallow your thinking is.

Beside reactions there is also such a thing as will.

Will is responsible for maintaining our focus, which is to say, for making sure that our drives are aligned with each other all of the time.

Though I may react to a lion, my reactions can be indifferent, if they are controlled, or emotional, if they are uncontrolled. In the first case, I remain focused, in the second case, I lose the focus and become emotional/hysterical/panicky/etc.

Here, it is courage that establishes one's indifference, and not one's reactions. If I am courageous enough, I can stand in front of the lion and die if it has to be. Reactions, here, aren't absent, they are present, but dominated by the will.

All indifference starts with indifference of courage and only later, through a laborious process of mastery, and as a consequence of over-learning, becomes an automated indifference. You are indifferent simply because there is nothing having an impact on your focus.

In both cases, it is focus which is the central concept.

Now take this logic and apply it to women.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

The reason indifference is attractive is because indifference is a sign of strong focus, of a man who cannot be easily distracted, and most importantly, from the point of view of women, because it means that a man has goals beyond women.

To be kind to women, or to pay too much attention to them, means that your focus is weak, either because you have no focus at all, or because your focus are women. Women can recognize this because they themselves are creatures of a weak focus, and women can despise this because they themselves feel helpless and in need of a man who is superior to them.

Indifference is quite simply a consequence and not a goal. Once you make it into a goal, it is no longer genuine indifference, but a trick a man with a weak focus, a needy man, uses in order to attract women.

Kindness and meanness can be rational, but for the most part, they are lingering habits that a man of order has to trim so that he can aesthetically synchronize them with the rest of his being.

Women are attracted to any kind of focus, but biological focus, which is aesthetical focus, is superior to mechanical focus, which is rational focus.

In fact, from a biological point of view, mechanical focus isn't really a focus since in order to maintain itself it has to be sheltered from all inhibiting drives. Once you look at the full biological picture, you will see that the drives, taken as a whole, are diverging and only selectively converging.

In hedonism, on the other hand, there is even less convergence, and mostly it's pure divergence of drives. In real life, this manifests as a series of short-lasting activities all of which are more or less unrelated to each other. Hedonism is easy and pleasurable but ultimately empty.

A sense of continuity is necessary, of movement from one point to another, where very little is lost of who I really am.

I thought this was very good.

Not sure if he lurks in the shadows here, but if he sees this, I'd like for him to add more.

Anyone else is welcome to offer their two cents.

There is a whole thread already over here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I don't think you need to be afraid of necroing here on KTS. I think necroing is preferable to filling up the forum with multiple topics of the same thing.

I didn't know he created this thread; I'll be damned.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Though I may react to a lion, my reactions can be indifferent, if they are controlled, or emotional, if they are uncontrolled. In the first case, I remain focused, in the second case, I lose the focus and become emotional/hysterical/panicky/etc.

It was all fine up to this point. This is where he began screwing himself up by trying to insert indifference where it doesn't belong.

If you react to something, and have to exert control over yourself in order not to give in to emotions, then how are you being indifferent? I would describe you then as being concerned, interested, responsive - all opposite in meaning to indifference.

Yes, focus is, in fact, the opposite of indifference.

He confused the indifference you feel for everything else comparatively to what you are focused on... the focused object(ive) occupying all of your need, making other things beside it go out of focus so you can concentrate on the object(ive).

Perhaps a confusion born from trying to see something wrong with the position for the sake of not seeming conformist.

Focus upon an object/objective decreases interest in everything surrounding it.
Focus turns caring into a laser point beam.

focus can also increase the pretense of indifference, where one hides his care, feigning cool indifference.

But this is not indifference concerning the object/objective focused upon - it is extreme care, monomaniacal care
Obsession is the focus upon a single person, a single goal. It is not indifferent to it, but so extreme in its care, that all else falls out of focus.

Like when you are speeding down a road.
The peripheral imagery becomes blurred, and you experience tunnel vision. Your consciousness is dominated by the point down the road you are headed towards.

If we push this to the extreme of the speed-of-light, we can imagine the reduction of spatial dimensions in all other directions except the direction of velocity. They say that matter will be elongated like a spaghetti string.
The object will shrink towards a pinpoint, as velocity increases.

This shrinking is a reduction of space/time, which is what possibility is.
The object speeding along at the speed-of-light will decreases its (inter)activity, its possibilities, in all directions, except the one towards the object/objective. Its possibilities are shrinking to a probability, meaning its (inter)actions are rending towards the singular - absolute, the one.

bump

Here is why Magnus left KTS.

Indifference = Stoicism.
Focus is not indifference.....it is extreme care. At the expense of all other cares...
It is indifference to all cares but one....a kind of deference, sanctification....entering a meditative state.
They call it "the zone", focused aggregate energies producing higher efficiency that multiplies effectiveness.