Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Against action.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:05 pm

Poison IV wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Need is a very fluid sensation.

I offer fluid with a needle sensation.

Good one.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:10 pm

Poison IV wrote:


Half of what she says is incomprehensible, and she's been trying to burn me with the same crap since she got here.

It comes down to the vague, matter-of-fact attitude. What she writes has merit....but too much. In such a way, that it must come from another source or she's not comfortable saying it. It tends to be bland, and overly referential. There is a hesitancy to write outside of a certain frame, and so it often fits into one-line, and holds some power in its empty, intellectual appeal. Be it the subtlety of using new language, or unusual words---this is meant to fill the gap; to dress up otherwise boring, unoriginal thought.

It's like a sneaky attempt at looking the part, and presenting oneself as well-learned and having the ability to give the 'correct' answers in a sarcastic, aloof fashion, while completely missing any personal input.

That's adorable. I may frame it and hang it on my wall, along wing the drawing my little niece made.


Last edited by phoneutria on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:12 am

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
So you are saying that desire and need is the same thing, or at least means the same thing to you?
Yes.
The difference is found in the nuances.

I desire what I need.
Otherwise, why do I desire it?
i desire it because ti fulfills, or I think that it might fulfill, the need inside of me.

In the "I think it does" the creation of artificial wants is made possible.
But then you are saying that you desire because you need it...(thus that need is primary and desire secondary or just equivalent to that) I would say that nothing is needed things are only desired, need is only a description of something that you require to fulfill a desire... there seems to be a difference between our view points here. I.e. I am saying "need" is basically a misconception; non-existent. You say you desire it because you need or think you need. I say you think you need because you desire something that needs a thing to be done or had in order to fulfill that desire.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Regardless how then is an active person a result of their degree of desires. But rather the particularity of the desire that requires activity?
When you are born, do you not suckle?
Do you not react to human touch?
The reaction is innate...there is no reasoning behind it.
Reasoning comes afterwards when self-0cosnciuosness seeks a motive for its own reactionary

Why do I react, without thinking, with an erection to the sight, the mere sight, of a female's round, firm, rump?
Why does it stir desire in me?
Why do I need to do something about it?
Tthere is brain activity we do think and we do reason, it is just on a different level. we are programed to desire particular things and thus we act as if we need them... What makes you think self-consciousness is at all necessary for a desire?

You do not need to do something about it... rather you desire to have the irritation of not doing it gone and thus you fulfill that desire. with practice that desire can be eliminated; by self programing, self conditioning. Other things that can't you still don't need to do unless you desire to live happily or live at all.

And again regardless of this it would seem to me that a person can be active and desire only a few things, or a person with many desires can not be very active... so it would seem that you are over generalizing.


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
One can have many desires and many can conflict and prevent them thus from being an active person despite having more desires then the most active, perhaps.
Ask yourself:
What is it that "prevents" him?
What is it that makes him think twice?
A desire to do a particular thing. I don't see that as changing what I said. you thus can have many desires and one particular desire will still make you less active.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:05 am

Quote :
Tthere is brain activity we do think and we do reason, it is just on a different level. we are programed to desire particular things and thus we act as if we need them... What makes you think self-consciousness is at all necessary for a desire?

You do not need to do something about it... rather you desire to have the irritation of not doing it gone and thus you fulfill that desire. with practice that desire can be eliminated; by self programing, self conditioning. Other things that can't you still don't need to do unless you desire to live happily or live at all.

And again regardless of this it would seem to me that a person can be active and desire only a few things, or a person with many desires can not be very active... so it would seem that you are over generalizing.


I disagree with both in stating that there are things you don't need which you may desire.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:44 am

phoneutria wrote:
Satyr wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Need is a very
fluid sensation.
No, sweetie, need is the sensation of fluidity.


Learn to think.

I know your looks can get you far
enough in this world, as it is governed by looks and superficiality, but
if you wish to go further...just for the fuck of it....try harder.

Do it for your daddy...whom I look nothing like.
I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I also think nothing like him.


I thought that what I wrote was simple enough that it didn't require expanding on. It is really very straightforward.

In order to live, and simply live, all you need is water and food a couple of times a week.
To live comfortably, you need food and water every day, plus shelter.
To live plentifully, you need food, water in abundance, comfortable shelter, and maybe some fucking art.

Thus,
I elaborate my admittedly vague sentence, in hopes that it will cease
to be ruled out as simple, but instead intentionally left vague in order
to incite thought.
You are capable of thought, I take it. I hope so. Thinking for others is not among my preferred activities.

I will even add a quote:

"Do
not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that
what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for."

How is that?
I was not responding to you, nor expressing agreement with her.
I was offering advice as to how to deal with what she considered inferior.

phoneutria wrote:
It
annoys me that in a forum of people who claim to have to dumb
themselves down in order to have a social life, I have to put filler in
my post to adapt to your style, in which everything must be explicit and
nothing can be intended.
Read the fucking post, then put your fucking think box to work. Is that too much to ask?
I never expressed confusion.

Is it possible that some might use laconic phrases and referencing to mask their own vulnerabilities?
From personal experience I have discovered that at times those appearing to be deep and wise if pushed, have on understanding of their own wisdom and depths.

I asked a scientist to define the #1 upon which the entire edifice of science rests and he offered me a mathematical reference with no philosophical backing.
He simply accepted the metaphor as a starting proposition, which he could not define nor defend, but which was useful to him and his peers, and popularly accepted as such.
I'm sure that some time in the past similar issues arose when asking a priest to define God.

I'm sure that being anti-materialistic makes you part of a rare breed of females, but I can't see upon what grounds you base your own "philosophy".
It seems like its more of a hip thing to be; a rejection of the social norm that sets you apart.
But without this understanding one crutch is replaced by another.
We supposedly, overcome God, but then we become enamored with his numerical representation...the #1.
We supposedly overcome Jude-Christianity but then we become faithful to its secular form of liberalism.
We supposedly are anti-nihilistic but then we believe and propose the elimination of all categories and dismiss nature and the world as a fake or as a primeval burden we must overcome, in effect erasing from memory all that constitutes identity. We then call this "freedom".

phoneutria wrote:
BTW:
first you said that need is the sensation of absence, then you said
that need is the sensation of fluidity. In my post I said that need is
fluid. How are we in disagreement?
I try to use precise words to express my ideas.
Need, for me, is an interpretation of fluidity.
Since all interpretation is constantly updated then all is fluid.

Why must we disagree?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:29 am

Abstract wrote:
[But then you are saying that you desire because you need it...(thus that need is primary and desire secondary or just equivalent to that) I would say that nothing is needed things are only desired, need is only a description of something that you require to fulfill a desire...
The sexual overtones of the term desire are not accidental.
Sex appears to be central in human thinking because it is the only response to mortality...it feeds the need to self-sustain.
But sex is a secondary need, as it developed later in evolutionary timescales, and so it is not a primary need. One can live without sex, even though the absence of it might have dire psychological and therefore psychosomatic consequences.

For me sex is mutation of feeding. There is an element of consuming in sexual passion.
The sex act itself is contains the feeding practice of a mother passing on food to an infant (kissing) and biting and penetration where one almost wishes to merge or be engulfed by the other.

Desire, in effect, is the focus of the Will upon an object/objective which promises, without ever completely delivering, a satiation.

Abstract wrote:
there seems to be a difference between our view points here. I.e. I am saying "need" is basically a misconception; non-existent. You say you desire it because you need or think you need. I say you think you need because you desire something that needs a thing to be done or had in order to fulfill that desire.
What a naive perspective you have.

I repeat.
Need, even in its rudimentary forms, is the conscious sensation of existing.
One awakens to reality by sensing one's own need for what is absent.
Life is an ordering in a disordering....therefore it is only possible in this linear temporal direction.
Life, consciousness, is only possible in a universe of increasing entropy.
We can assume that entropy is also simultaneously decreasing but we can never be aware of it.

Need is not "non-existent" as it is the sensation, interpretation, of existence. Activity is how this absence manifests.
I act because I need and I need because I lack.
Even the act of thinking presupposes an absence of omniscience.
I wish to know, I desire knowledge, because I am ignorant to one degree or another.

I strive towards power or life (Will to Power - Will to Life) because I do not posses it in any absolute way, but always in degree and in regards to an otherness.
I create and procreate because I lack immortality and understanding and order.

Your body is a living testament to your lack.
You need not know it rationally or even accept it.
you breath because your body needs, and what it needs is never enough.
You fill your stomach and it sustains you for a while, but the nutrients are c9osntantly distributed to your cells which continually need nourishment...energy or preserve themselves.
Your body is constantly fighting off intruders because it lacks completion...its boundaries are porous, its skin is not an adequate separation...the world intrudes upon its premises and deteriorates it.

In this I agree with Schopenhauer who defines pleasure as a negative sensation.

You are constantly making and remaking yourself.
You are held together in a relatively stable and ephemerally ordered state by memory...both genetic and memetic.

Wants are different to needs in that you can want something which you can do without, but a want is based on needs which you may not be immediately aware of and which you cannot do without satisfying, constantly.
For example you may want a nice house, or a car, but not for the reasons you tell yourself.
You might be able to do without a nice house or a car but the needs that makes it a want, a desire, cannot be ignored;
you need sustenance and a car promises access to it; you need shelter and a house provides it, though it might not be nice; you need social interaction and the house and car serve you in making you noticed or offering you contact or blending into a social environment you cannot live outside.
It does not matter how you justify your wants and desires, because the underlying need remains the same: the need to survive, to be cohesive (ordered), to increase your domain of influence, your power.

Abstract wrote:
Tthere is brain activity we do think and we do reason, it is just on a different level. we are programed to desire particular things and thus we act as if we need them... What makes you think self-consciousness is at all necessary for a desire?
Did I say that it was?
Consciousness proceeds self-consciousness...but the need is present in all organisms.

All is active, right?
What produces activity?
Nothing acts spontaneously.
Action is a result of a discrepancy in energy.
The weaker tens towards the stronger....the air tends towards the vacuum.
All is active because all is interactive, and always off-balance to a degree or another.
All is in a state of Flux.
Life is a reaction to this; consciousness is how this Flux is interpreted.
I use the term "Flux" now because it also indicates a universe where entropy is decreasing and increasing simultaneously but this should not indicate that it is in a state of balance.
you can't extricate yourself from reality and pronounce it balanced, from some imaginary, all-encompassing, all-knowing vantage point. All you can do is take the given, the immediately perceptible and extrapolate upwards.

Now scientists are talking of mutiverses and that our own is a product of one membrane coming into contact with another, so our universe might not be a product of balance at all; it might not be eternal. But the mind, being an instrument of ordering, needs order to make sense of a fluid reality. So it creates these mental models within the mind, and there it surveys it as a whole.
This is where delusion might set in, as the mind then begins to misconstrue its own mental models, for reality itself. It confuses the ideal with the real.

Abstract wrote:
You do not need to do something about it... rather you desire to have the irritation of not doing it gone and thus you fulfill that desire. with practice that desire can be eliminated; by self programing, self conditioning. Other things that can't you still don't need to do unless you desire to live happily or live at all.
Again....you are mortal...are you not?
Do you not breath and does not your heart pump blood, and does not your immune system defend you against viruses, and does not your mind lack knowledge or understanding, and do not your cells feed upon nutrients you break down in your stomach...constantly?
If so then you are always in a state fo need.

How this need is directed, socially, politically, memetically, is another matter.
Wants can definitely be artificially constructed...you might be convinced you want what you may not...but this is only possible, this type of manipulation is possible, because the underlying need is always present.
Happiness is a myth...whatever level of contentment is possible is made so by understanding self.
This self-knowledge leads to the possibility of you focusing your energies to what will provide you with constant satisfaction and will live up to your expectations, because your expectations are made humble and tangible.

When you understand yourself, your kind, your environment...then you stop giving a shit about the propaganda.
Phoeutria mentions it: all you really need is nutrition, water, oxygen, space, and some companionship, sexual or not...and these because you are an organism which is imperfect seeking fulfillment.

Abstract wrote:
And again regardless of this it would seem to me that a person can be active and desire only a few things, or a person with many desires can not be very active... so it would seem that you are over generalizing.
The classic comeback of a mind unable to accept the idea that its own absolute "happiness" is impossible and, more than this, undesirable.
The truly "happy" man, theoretically always, has no need and so does not act.
Why would a God act?
Why would a God create?

Boredom?
Then this is a lack in Him...contradicting His, hypothetical, perfection.
Curiosity?
This implies an absence of knowledge as will. It implies a need.

Abstract wrote:
A desire to do a particular thing. I don't see that as changing what I said. you thus can have many desires and one particular desire will still make you less active.
Therefore being in a state of absolute bliss is a human myth.

The moment you satisfy a need, it begins building again....it is not erased it is momentarily quelled to the point where it drops off your level of consciousness.

I eat, right, but my need to eat does not vanish...it is only momentarily satiated and fed consistently, with the evolved method of storing food in the stomach, to a point where it no longer occupies your consciousness. The mind is a tool...and it deals with problems and survival.
When one problem has been dealt with, for a short while, it moves onto the next.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:54 am

Camus, Albert wrote:
Animals, according to Hegel, have an immediate knowledge of the exterior world, a perception of the self, but not the knowledge of self, which distinguishes man. The latter is only really born at the moment when he becomes aware of himself as a rational being. Therefore his essential characteristic is self-consciousness.
Consciousness of self, to be affirmed, must distinguish itself from what it is not.

Man is a creature who, to affirm his existence and his difference, denies.

What distinguishes consciousness of self from the world of nature is not the simple act of contemplation by which it identifies itself with the exterior world and finds oblivion, but the desire it can feel with regard to the world. This desire re-establishes its identity when it demonstrates that the exterior world is something apart. In its desire, the exterior world consists of what it does not possess, but which nevertheless exists, and of what it would like to exist but which no longer does. Consciousness of self is therefore of necessity, desire.

But in order to exist it must be satisfied, and it can only be satisfied by the gratification of the desire. It therefore acts in order to gratify itself and, in so doing, it denies and suppresses its means of gratification. It is the epitome of negation. To act is to destroy in order to give birth to the spiritual reality of consciousness. But to destroy an object unconsciously, as meat is destroyed, for example, in the act of eating, is a purely animal activity.

To consume is not yet to be conscious. Desire for consciousness must be directed toward something other than unconscious nature. The only thing in
the world that is distinct from nature is, precisely, self-consciousness. Therefore desire must be centered upon another form of desire; self-consciousness
must be gratified by another form of self-consciousness.
In simple words, man is not recognized—and does not recognize himself—as a man as long as he limits himself to subsisting like an animal.
He must be acknowledged by other men.
All consciousness is, basically, the desire to be recognized and proclaimed as such by other consciousnesses. It is others who beget us. Only in association do we receive a human value, as distinct from
animal value.

- The Rebel

Camus, Albert wrote:

That is the answer to the question which is always being asked: why has the revolutionary movement identified itself with materialism rather than with idealism?
Because to conquer God, to make Him a slave, amounts to abolishing the transcendence that kept the former masters in power and tom preparing, with the ascendency of the new tyrants, the advent of the man-king. When poverty is abolished, when the contradictions of history are resolved, “the real god, the human god, will be the State.”

Then homo homini lupus becomes homo homini deus.

This concept is at the root of the contemporary world. With Feuerbach, we assist at the birth of a terrible form of optimism which we can still observe at work today and which seems to be the very antithesis of nihilist despair. But this only in appearance.
We must know Feuerbach’s final conclusion in this Theogony to perceive the profoundly nihilistic derivation of his inflamed imagination.

In effect, Feuerbach affirms, in the face of Hegel, that man is only what he eats, and thus recapitulates his ideas and predicts the future in the following
phrase:
“The true philosophy is the negation of philosophy. No religion is my religion. No philosophy is my philosophy."
- The Rebel

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:19 pm

Satyr wrote:


I repeat.
Need, even in its rudimentary forms, is the conscious sensation of existing.
One awakens to reality by sensing one's own need for what is absent.
Life is an ordering in a disordering....therefore it is only possible in this linear temporal direction.
Life, consciousness, is only possible in a universe of increasing entropy.
We can assume that entropy is also simultaneously decreasing but we can never be aware of it.

Need is not "non-existent" as it is the sensation, interpretation, of existence. Activity is how this absence manifests.
I act because I need and I need because I lack.
Even the act of thinking presupposes an absence of omniscience.
I wish to know, I desire knowledge, because I am ignorant to one degree or another.

I strive towards power or life (Will to Power - Will to Life) because I do not posses it in any absolute way, but always in degree and in regards to an otherness.
I create and procreate because I lack immortality and understanding and order.

Your body is a living testament to your lack.
You need not know it rationally or even accept it.
you breath because your body needs, and what it needs is never enough.
You fill your stomach and it sustains you for a while, but the nutrients are c9osntantly distributed to your cells which continually need nourishment...energy or preserve themselves.
Your body is constantly fighting off intruders because it lacks completion...its boundaries are porous, its skin is not an adequate separation...the world intrudes upon its premises and deteriorates it.

In this I agree with Schopenhauer who defines pleasure as a negative sensation.

You are constantly making and remaking yourself.
You are held together in a relatively stable and ephemerally ordered state by memory...both genetic and memetic.

Wants are different to needs in that you can want something which you can do without, but a want is based on needs which you may not be immediately aware of and which you cannot do without satisfying, constantly.
For example you may want a nice house, or a car, but not for the reasons you tell yourself.
You might be able to do without a nice house or a car but the needs that makes it a want, a desire, cannot be ignored;
you need sustenance and a car promises access to it; you need shelter and a house provides it, though it might not be nice; you need social interaction and the house and car serve you in making you noticed or offering you contact or blending into a social environment you cannot live outside.
It does not matter how you justify your wants and desires, because the underlying need remains the same: the need to survive, to be cohesive (ordered), to increase your domain of influence, your power.
In order to justify this you would have to prove that we actually need to live... but we don't. all these things you call needs are only needed because of the desire to live. thus everything comes down to a desire. So my question to you is do we need to live?

By the way you never answered my question: Do you seek for converts?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
There is brain activity we do think and we do reason, it is just on a different level. we are programed to desire particular things and thus we act as if we need them... What makes you think self-consciousness is at all necessary for a desire?
Did I say that it was?
you said this in response to me given what I meant it seemed to imply such: "Reasoning comes afterwards when self-0cosnciuosness seeks a motive for its own reactionary"


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
You do not need to do something about it... rather you desire to have the irritation of not doing it gone and thus you fulfill that desire. with practice that desire can be eliminated; by self programing, self conditioning. Other things that can't you still don't need to do unless you desire to live happily or live at all.
Again....you are mortal...are you not?
Do you not breath and does not your heart pump blood, and does not your immune system defend you against viruses, and does not your mind lack knowledge or understanding, and do not your cells feed upon nutrients you break down in your stomach...constantly?
If so then you are always in a state fo need.
No you only need that stuff if you seek to live. if you don't desire to live then you don't grasp for those things and you die, plain and simple, because you are mortal. It is only a need for something in the sense that you desire to live.



Abstract wrote:
And again regardless of this it would seem to me that a person can be active and desire only a few things, or a person with many desires can not be very active... so it would seem that you are over generalizing.
The classic comeback of a mind unable to accept the idea that its own absolute "happiness" is impossible and, more than this, undesirable. [/quote] your reading imaginary stuff into my words... I haven't said or thought anything with regards to happiness. Which when I do I tend to think of it only synonymous with contentment.

Example: a person can desire only to have power, sex, and money...3 things.. and be very active
Another person can want power, sex, and money...world peace or something, and thus does not do anything for the sake of not contradicting peace.

Not the best example but it should give you the idea...

Satyr wrote:

The truly "happy" man, theoretically always, has no need and so does not act.
Why would a God act?
Why would a God create?

Boredom?
Then this is a lack in Him...contradicting His, hypothetical, perfection.
Curiosity?
This implies an absence of knowledge as will. It implies a need.
if there is an ultimate such as a god it does not necessarily have to be perfect. (Hinduism)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
A desire to do a particular thing. I don't see that as changing what I said. you thus can have many desires and one particular desire will still make you less active.
Therefore being in a state of absolute bliss is a human myth.
I don't see how that conclusion follows from the premise? I presume for some reason you think I believe in a state of absolute bliss? But let me ask you this, if there is a state of contentment and that is all there can be then is not that then the ultimate state and thus what should be called bliss?

Satyr wrote:

The moment you satisfy a need, it begins building again....it is not erased it is momentarily quelled to the point where it drops off your level of consciousness.

I eat, right, but my need to eat does not vanish...it is only momentarily satiated and fed consistently, with the evolved method of storing food in the stomach, to a point where it no longer occupies your consciousness. The mind is a tool...and it deals with problems and survival.
When one problem has been dealt with, for a short while, it moves onto the next.
I think need can only exist in the sense of defining it as something that is required to fulfill the desire to live or live content. So perhaps I should not have said need does not exist but rather that need in the sense provided or often thought of does not... as it is not a requirement, it is only a relative requirement, one required only if one wants to live or and live relatively content. beyond that a thing is not a need but an unnecessary desire. yet then certain things can be required for achieving contentment due to addiction or over consumption such as to get used to having larger portions...such I would think is not needed but to fulfill a desire that is not accepted as being one that is efficient...or rather it prevent the fulfillment of others and is thus a overall prevention of fulfillment of such desire based needs, with regards to the whole of humanity.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 pm

Abstract wrote:
In order to justify this you would have to prove that we actually need to live... but we don't. all these things you call needs are only needed because of the desire to live. thus everything comes down to a desire. So my question to you is do we need to live?
I do.
I need to survive, to be conscious and willful, and to survive, is to live.
Do you?

To act on need one need not be aware of the outcome.
An animal strives to persist, without having a conception of need or existing of life.
It acts on an impulse.

Abstract wrote:
By the way you never answered my question: Do you seek for converts?
No, do you?

Abstract wrote:
No you only need that stuff if you seek to live. if you don't desire to live then you don't grasp for those things and you die, plain and simple, because you are mortal. It is only a need for something in the sense that you desire to live.
Ergo to exist as a consciousness means to contradict, to resist, entropy, or fragmentation.
It is an act of will, giving itself direction with these projected objects/objectives.
Desire is the focus of the Will upon them.

Again: Need is the consciousness of a linear flow...a towards increasing entropy.
It is an ordering in the disordering.
You react instinctively...alter you gain self-consciousness, questioning, as you do this need.
You turn to God or you become nihilistic, wondering why one must live at all.
The animal, or the simpleton, does not h ave existential questions. He is an agent of life, and acts in accordance to its needs as these have been produced by the reaction to entropy.

Abstract wrote:
Example: a person can desire only to have power, sex, and money...3 things.. and be very active
Another person can want power, sex, and money...world peace or something, and thus does not do anything for the sake of not contradicting peace.
But he does...he is forever active.
His heart beats, his mind thinks and hopes, his immune system resists...
He is inactive in relation to manmade constructs such as peace and power.
These are not possible in the absolute sense but only ephemerally and in regards to a condition a man can cope with...or they are comparisons of states.
Sex is merely a means.

Abstract wrote:
if there is an ultimate such as a god it does not necessarily have to be perfect. (Hinduism)
therefore he exists within the world and is a participant, contradicting any idea of omnipotence and omniscience.
Are not Hindus polytheists?

The ancient Greeks believed in such gods.
They were symbols of natural processes. Approachable, faulty prone to errors and and susceptible to manipulation.

Abstract wrote:
I don't see how that conclusion follows from the premise? I presume for some reason you think I believe in a state of absolute bliss?
You used the word "happiness".
I'm simply pointing out that this is an ephemeral and negative state.

Abstract wrote:
But let me ask you this, if there is a state of contentment and that is all there can be then is not that then the ultimate state and thus what should be called bliss?
Yes, and if there is a christian God The Rapture is coming.

Abstract wrote:
I think need can only exist in the sense of defining it as something that is required to fulfill the desire to live or live content.
I'm wodnering to myself if you show this much sleticism to the notion of a Will, as it has been used by others.
For me there is no Will without consciousness, as there is no need without it.
There is Flux, which needs not because it is both unconscious and not a thing at all. Life is a direction towards Thingness, in its positive form, or a towards No-Thing in its negative.

Abstract wrote:
So perhaps I should not have said need does not exist but rather that need in the sense provided or often thought of does not... as it is not a requirement, it is only a relative requirement, one required only if one wants to live or and live relatively content. beyond that a thing is not a need but an unnecessary desire. yet then certain things can be required for achieving contentment due to addiction or over consumption such as to get used to having larger portions...such I would think is not needed but to fulfill a desire that is not accepted as being one that is efficient...or rather it prevent the fulfillment of others and is thus a overall prevention of fulfillment of such desire based needs, with regards to the whole of humanity.
You, like many liberals and New age spiritualists think of words within the prism of capitalism and modern day political discourse.
I could care less about your "progressive" ideals and naive expectations.
I've concluded that liberalism or this need, NEED, to abolish categories and create uniformity and the absence of suffering, similar to eastern spiritualism, is a hidden nihilism.
You seek to abolish the very factors that made you possible, like greed, violence, selfishness etc.
This is a form of self-hatred.

I am an advocate of asceticism and balance, but I do not cloud it with pseudo-altruism and morality.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:54 pm

Abstract wrote:

In order to justify this you would have to prove that we actually need to live... but we don't. all these things you call needs are only needed because of the desire to live. thus everything comes down to a desire. So my question to you we need to live?

You arrived at the next logical step of my argument.
Need, being a very fluid sensation, is entirely conditional to an objective.
"In order to ----, you need ----".
Without objective, there is no need.

Now, to align with both off you, since we are all saying the same things in different ways, I can make this connection: an objective is the fruit of a desire.

Thus, if there is no desire, there is no need.

And that, is epicurism, to whom is credited the quote I posted before.

Note that the reversed relation is false, there can be desire without need, as I posted before as well.





Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:03 pm

No, we are not.

I claim that the universe has no objective...it is Flux.
Interaction, blind and without meaning and purpose.

Life, and the consciousness it produces, is what gives direction and then when it results in self-consciousness it seeks, at first, externally and then projects from the abstractions it creates itself, a purpose and a meaning...an object/objective.

This projection is need in the face of an absence.
What is absent is indeterminate for the very reason that it is absent. It can be anything the human mind can imagine and project out of necessity.

I call it the absolute.
you might call it by its many other names: Thing, One, God, Particle, Static, Whole, Self.....and so on and so on.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:26 pm

That which is alive has a profound desire to remain alive, and that shapes its essential needs.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:43 pm

Yes, as all needs are a product of this basic need.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:57 pm

Satyr wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Satyr wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Need is a very
fluid sensation.
No, sweetie, need is the sensation of fluidity.


Learn to think.

I know your looks can get you far
enough in this world, as it is governed by looks and superficiality, but
if you wish to go further...just for the fuck of it....try harder.

Do it for your daddy...whom I look nothing like.
I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I also think nothing like him.


I thought that what I wrote was simple enough that it didn't require expanding on. It is really very straightforward.

In order to live, and simply live, all you need is water and food a couple of times a week.
To live comfortably, you need food and water every day, plus shelter.
To live plentifully, you need food, water in abundance, comfortable shelter, and maybe some fucking art.

Thus,
I elaborate my admittedly vague sentence, in hopes that it will cease
to be ruled out as simple, but instead intentionally left vague in order
to incite thought.
You are capable of thought, I take it. I hope so. Thinking for others is not among my preferred activities.

I will even add a quote:

"Do
not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that
what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for."

How is that?
I was not responding to you, nor expressing agreement with her.
I was offering advice as to how to deal with what she considered inferior.

You were responding to me. You told me to learn to think and then some nonsense about my looks and my dad.
My post is in response to that. It is a disagreement with the concept that because my posts are brief, the lack thought. Read again please.

Quote :

phoneutria wrote:
It
annoys me that in a forum of people who claim to have to dumb
themselves down in order to have a social life, I have to put filler in
my post to adapt to your style, in which everything must be explicit and
nothing can be intended.
Read the fucking post, then put your fucking think box to work. Is that too much to ask?
I never expressed confusion.

Is it possible that some might use laconic phrases and referencing to mask their own vulnerabilities?
From personal experience I have discovered that at times those appearing to be deep and wise if pushed, have on understanding of their own wisdom and depths.

Yes, bus is that the case?
You and poison seem to have already decided that it is.
And thus I look down on you, not in reciprocation, but because my posts are lost in you.

Quote :

I asked a scientist to define the #1 upon which the entire edifice of science rests and he offered me a mathematical reference with no philosophical backing.
He simply accepted the metaphor as a starting proposition, which he could not define nor defend, but which was useful to him and his peers, and popularly accepted as such.
I'm sure that some time in the past similar issues arose when asking a priest to define God.

Cool story.

Quote :

I'm sure that being anti-materialistic makes you part of a rare breed of females,

It goes further than that...

Quote :

but I can't see upon what grounds you base your own "philosophy".

I don't have one.

Quote :

It seems like its more of a hip thing to be; a rejection of the social norm that sets you apart.

"Social norm" is also subjective. Remember, I am not from here.

Quote :

But without this understanding one crutch is replaced by another.
We supposedly, overcome God, but then we become enamored with his numerical representation...the #1.
We supposedly overcome Jude-Christianity but then we become faithful to its secular form of liberalism.
We supposedly are anti-nihilistic but then we believe and propose the elimination of all categories and dismiss nature and the world as a fake or as a primeval burden we must overcome, in effect erasing from memory all that constitutes identity. We then call this "freedom".

We are condemned to replace one concept with another, because we need to understand.
And when we reach the end of the stack, we return to the first concept.
We are vain creatures. Vanity of vanities... remember this one?

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

Is that... nihilism? In the holy fucking bible?!

Quote :

phoneutria wrote:
BTW:
first you said that need is the sensation of absence, then you said
that need is the sensation of fluidity. In my post I said that need is
fluid. How are we in disagreement?
I try to use precise words to express my ideas.
Need, for me, is an interpretation of fluidity.
Since all interpretation is constantly updated then all is fluid.

Why must we disagree?

It seems that, despite the "no sweetie", and the "learn to think", we don't disagree at all.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:05 pm

phoneutria wrote:
"Social norm" is also subjective. Remember, I am not from here.

phoneutria wrote:
Satyr wrote:

but I can't see upon what grounds you base your own "philosophy".

I don't have one.

phoneutria wrote:
You and poison seem to have already decided that it is.
And thus I look down on you, not in reciprocation, but because my posts are lost in you.
phoneutria wrote:
It seems that, despite the "no sweetie", and the "learn to think", we don't disagree at all.

It would appear that I am in disagreement with you.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:25 pm

Not on the subject being discussed.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:50 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
In order to justify this you would have to prove that we actually need to live... but we don't. all these things you call needs are only needed because of the desire to live. thus everything comes down to a desire. So my question to you is do we need to live?
I do.
I need to survive, to be conscious and willful, and to survive, is to live.
Do you?

To act on need one need not be aware of the outcome.
An animal strives to persist, without having a conception of need or existing of life.
It acts on an impulse.


Can you explain how it is that you reason that you need to live?

No I do not need to live... but there are particular things that I want to do.

We could step into the more ...metaphysical... and ask: can we actually not-live? perhaps after the death of this body we are reborn..or there is some after life... but that is another question and perhaps one that is unsatisfactorily answerable.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
By the way you never answered my question: Do you seek for converts?
No, do you?
Might depend on how it is meant... at times..as I think many do... I desire to have particular people do things, and thus it could be said that I make effort to convert them in a manner to aid in the accomplishment of what I desire. Though personally I do my best not to do such wherein it is evident that it will do wrong to the given convert. And generally my goals or what I desire is in line with what seems to be what is most likely to justly fulfill the desires of the people...or something like that... (why?....Why not?)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
No you only need that stuff if you seek to live. if you don't desire to live then you don't grasp for those things and you die, plain and simple, because you are mortal. It is only a need for something in the sense that you desire to live.
Ergo to exist as a consciousness means to contradict, to resist, entropy, or fragmentation.
Maybe only if you are of a particular state of consciousness... one might say that particular states of thinking are purely reactionary where in one then does not resist, they are just instinctual reacting as I do by beating my heart...and then that requires the presumption that there is not the possibility I mentioned above of stuff like after lives or reincarnation...

And even then one does not constantly have to resist... for example if one only want to live for a few ..i don't know 3 days ..they don't have to resist... (unless there happens to be a human eating beast around...stalking them...) they can just sit and do nothing and live without resisting for a time being...

And then do we resist constantly or only for moments or particular periods of time?

And then in order to say it is resistance doesn't that require the belief in free-will... otherwise everything is predetermined and we are really just going with the flow, right?

Satyr wrote:

It is an act of will, giving itself direction with these projected objects/objectives.
Desire is the focus of the Will upon them.

Again: Need is the consciousness of a linear flow...a towards increasing entropy.
It is an ordering in the disordering.
Without thought there is no recognition of anything being ordered or disordered. so perhaps both require perception?

but to be honest maybe I have lost track of some of the context or something but I don't know that I follow what you mean by need being the consciousness of a linear flow?


Satyr wrote:

You react instinctively...alter you gain self-consciousness, questioning, as you do this need.
You turn to God or you become nihilistic, wondering why one must live at all.
The animal, or the simpleton, does not h ave existential questions. He is an agent of life, and acts in accordance to its needs as these have been produced by the reaction to entropy.
Is there really in "accordance" when it is pure reactive action? except accordance to the environmental activity that resulted in stimulating the reaction?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Example: a person can desire only to have power, sex, and money...3 things.. and be very active
Another person can want power, sex, and money...world peace or something, and thus does not do anything for the sake of not contradicting peace.
But he does...he is forever active.
His heart beats, his mind thinks and hopes, his immune system resists...
He is inactive in relation to manmade constructs such as peace and power.
These are not possible in the absolute sense but only ephemerally and in regards to a condition a man can cope with...or they are comparisons of states.
If we are to look at things in that sense then we must say that all people are equally active in that we are all infinitely active in that there are an infinite number of actions going on in accordance to what we are including not simply heart palpitations but alterations of cellular behavior and what not?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
if there is an ultimate such as a god it does not necessarily have to be perfect. (Hinduism)
therefore he exists within the world and is a participant, contradicting any idea of omnipotence and omniscience.
Not therefore; there can be nothing concluded regarding such I would think, if anything can be concluded regarding anything. omnipotence would not necessarily be contradicted because we do not know what all-powers are or are not, and what are not powers but rather imaginary things we think would be nice if they were powers... like wise that does not necessarily contradict omniscience. ironically given ideas of rebirth ... if one has experienced an infinite number of lives then we are all omniscience, we just don't currently know all things, or all things at one given time except perhaps that one moment that is the entirety of time.

Satyr wrote:
Are not Hindus polytheists?
Some might be... most think of the gods as being manifestations of the one divine entity they think is the ultimate... many call that ultimate brahman some think it is shakti... some shiva... some vishnu... etc... hinduim is realy a polytheoristic religion... there are atheist Hindu sects...

Satyr wrote:

The ancient Greeks believed in such gods.
They were symbols of natural processes. Approachable, faulty prone to errors and and susceptible to manipulation.
Different... the gods of hinduism are often more fair to be called representative of particular natures of types of people... to some...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I don't see how that conclusion follows from the premise? I presume for some reason you think I believe in a state of absolute bliss?
You used the word "happiness".
I'm simply pointing out that this is an ephemeral and negative state.
I thought I did use it once. I don't know that it is a negative state while it is in effect but perhaps it results in negativity? Fly to high and suffer to great a fall...sort of thing.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
But let me ask you this, if there is a state of contentment and that is all there can be then is not that then the ultimate state and thus what should be called bliss?
Yes, and if there is a christian God The Rapture is coming.
everything that has yet to be is always approaching, coming, if it can be.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I think need can only exist in the sense of defining it as something that is required to fulfill the desire to live or live content.
I'm wodnering to myself if you show this much sleticism to the notion of a Will, as it has been used by others.
For me there is no Will without consciousness, as there is no need without it.
There is Flux, which needs not because it is both unconscious and not a thing at all. Life is a direction towards Thingness, in its positive form, or a towards No-Thing in its negative.
Seems like your lookin at half the circle things go that direction and approach no thingness and then come back around...perhaps...

what did you mean by the first sentence? Selectism?

Satyr wrote:

You, like many liberals and New age spiritualists think of words within the prism of capitalism and modern day political discourse.
I could care less about your "progressive" ideals and naive expectations.
I've concluded that liberalism or this need, NEED, to abolish categories and create uniformity and the absence of suffering, similar to eastern spiritualism, is a hidden nihilism.
You seek to abolish the very factors that made you possible, like greed, violence, selfishness etc.
This is a form of self-hatred.

I am an advocate of asceticism and balance, but I do not cloud it with pseudo-altruism and morality.
Your continued suggested interpretations of my nature continue to be quite inaccurate. I can be considered some what liberal in the literal since of the word given places where it is efficient to do such. Neither did I ask you to care about my ideals, nor are they necessarily progressive as many of them if not all are repetitions of things that have been said before. further i don't desire uniformity if anything i am bored and find it fun to see reductions in suffering because it is a challenging thing to attempt puzzling. In fact i am quite open to what is the most logical consideration or thought such as to inform action and so must say i find this particular ad hom of yours as rather ill with regards to logically convincing me of any particular mode of thought...not that I am suggesting you are attempting such necessarily.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:13 pm

Satyr wrote:
No, we are not.

I claim that the universe has no objective...it is Flux.
Interaction, blind and without meaning and purpose.

Life, and the consciousness it produces, is what gives direction and then when it results in self-consciousness it seeks, at first, externally and then projects from the abstractions it creates itself, a purpose and a meaning...an object/objective.

This projection is need in the face of an absence.
What is absent is indeterminate for the very reason that it is absent. It can be anything the human mind can imagine and project out of necessity.

I call it the absolute.
you might call it by its many other names: Thing, One, God, Particle, Static, Whole, Self.....and so on and so on.
I didn't think we were talking of the universe as having an objective... but of individual humans having desires...

anyways...

If life gives direction and life springs from the universe then the universe is what initially directed and thus directs life, isn't it... what allows life to magically be able to direct things any more then anything else?

Is it perhaps an abstraction to think that the universe is or isn't a separate from consciousness in the first place?

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:33 pm

Abstract wrote:

I didn't think we were talking of the universe as having an objective... but of individual humans having desires...
If portions of the universe can have objectives, then we do not know if the whole thing does or does not.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:33 pm

Abstract wrote:
Can you explain how it is that you reason that you need to live?
There is no choice without life.

Life is an automatic reaction. You don't think about breathing, you do so automatically because you need oxygen.
You can't even will yourself not to breath, although it is reported that Diogenes dies by holding his own breathe...but you can end your automatic breathing by killing yourself.

The automatic processes which are reactions to entropy can only be appreciated after the fact.
Nihilism is partly a questioning of one's own constant and automatic reaffirmation of life.
Life is an ordering....ergo it needs energies to order itself.

Abstract wrote:
We could step into the more ...metaphysical... and ask: can we actually not-live? perhaps after the death of this body we are reborn..or there is some after life... but that is another question and perhaps one that is unsatisfactorily answerable.
I don't discuss such hypotheticals.

Abstract wrote:
Might depend on how it is meant... at times..as I think many do... I desire to have particular people do things, and thus it could be said that I make effort to convert them in a manner to aid in the accomplishment of what I desire. Though personally I do my best not to do such wherein it is evident that it will do wrong to the given convert. And generally my goals or what I desire is in line with what seems to be what is most likely to justly fulfill the desires of the people...or something like that... (why?....Why not?)
I find people tiresome.
My ambitions are strictly personal.
Others get in the way, slow me down, or divert me from my main goal.

Do I get a sense of power when I do influence someone?
Definitely.
But it does not affect my self-assessment.
Abstract wrote:

And even then one does not constantly have to resist... for example if one only want to live for a few ..i don't know 3 days ..they don't have to resist... (unless there happens to be a human eating beast around...stalking them...) they can just sit and do nothing and live without resisting for a time being...
The act of existing as a willful cohesive emergent unity, is an act of aggression.
When you eat, you deny that organism life but you also deny it's nutrients to another.
When you breath you appropriate the oxygen.
When you defend yourself against viruses you resist infiltration asserting your domain.

This is why the Buddhist non-resistance, non-aggression, myth is bullshit.
If you live...you are doing so by resisting, by being selfish and aggressive.

Abstract wrote:
And then do we resist constantly or only for moments or particular periods of time?
Flow is constant...resistance to it is cosntant.....repairing the attrition this produces is constant.
Age is the fatigue that follows.
In time the attrition of retaining cohesion and resisting produces so much damage, accumulated through time, that the combined energies under the organism's control become insufficient to deal with it. At that point the organism begins to decline and then it dies.

Time is both a blessing and a curse.
Nietzsche's overman was the future man who has overcome the resentment this produces in the aware mind.
It is the overcoming of resentment towards the very thing which makes life possible...in a sense it is an overcoming of self-hate.

Much of liberal politics, this denial and dismissal of the past, is a hidden self-hatred as one hates or wishes to forget the very circumstances that brought him about.

Abstract wrote:
And then in order to say it is resistance doesn't that require the belief in free-will... otherwise everything is predetermined and we are really just going with the flow, right?
I've said this before but since you ask I'll say it again.
Free-will is a self-contradicting concept.

When I will, I will what I do not posses, but only in degree, I will what I lack absolutely...ergo Will to power and Will to life.
I will what I need...ergo I am dependent on its attainment.
Therefore I am not independent...not free.

Free-will, for me is about increasing ones approach towards the absolute.
The closer I get to it, without ever finishing the job, the more free I become....and this is accompanied by an indifference since to not need, to be free, is to be indifferent.

Abstract wrote:
Without thought there is no recognition of anything being ordered or disordered. so perhaps both require perception?
Yes, but you are talknig about the after emergence of consciousness, out of this ordering, and then self-consciousness.

This is why you understand yourself after-the-fact...as consciousness is a looking back.
By the time you've conceptualized the phenomenon that stimulated your sense organs it has ceased to be as it was...because flow is constant.
Therefore you are perceiving, no matter how fast your analytical ability is, the world that was.
This makes the liberal notion of forgetting the past or dismissing it, more ironic, as it constitutes a diminishment of consciousness.

If we are all the sum of our pasts, then knowing yourself (Know Thyself) is knowing your past and accepting it.
Dismissing it is a form of self denial and a dumbing-down.
The system benefits from it because a less self-aware mind is a mind more desperate to find identity in the more immediate past.
The system offers its artifices, its social statuses and its values to fill in the void it produced by training the mind to dismiss the past as primitive or irrelevant or an illusion.

The mind is lost, cut off from its heritage. It does not even accept its own nature as being determining.
It is a tabula rasa, Sartre's terror of his delusional absolute freedom.
Sartre was a douche-bag.
Man is not free, as he is contingent and a product of a past he cannot change.
Man strives for freedom, by slowly diverting his path willfully and against the determinations of the past.
Freedom is another word for the absent.
It is nihilism. To be absolutely free is to need nothing, noone; it is to be omnipotent and omniscient...indifferent.
To be God is to be a singularity that requires nothing.
Consciousness is an ordering, and so the absolutely ordered would require no ordering.
What would an omniscience Being do with consciousness? Thinking would be obsolete.

The only way around this dilemma is a simple baptism:
You just call the ordering order....or you call change perfection.
Now we are dealing with semantics.
To make it all make sense you redefine existence as an illusion, or you make it into some kind of staging area, a purgatory awaiting the more real reality.
The world is degraded into a fake, an undesirable one.

Abstract wrote:
but to be honest maybe I have lost track of some of the context or something but I don't know that I follow what you mean by need being the consciousness of a linear flow?
Entropy is increasing.
In fact as time passes and order decreases entropy is speeding up.
Life is an ordering in this disordering...ergo it needs...and it suffers because it resists the flow of time.
You can't escape suffering because to suffer is synonymous with living. You can, however, build up your tolerance, momentarily as age deals with that as well, increasing your possibility for comfort. Comfort is a state where the energies under your willful control are sufficient to deal with entropy.

Consciousness is the awareness of existence...which is increasing in entropy resulting in need which if left unsatisfied builds up into suffering.
So, being conscious is the awareness of flow towards increasing entropy...which is the only direction life is possible in - the arrow of time.
There are other direction, dimensions, but your mind being an ordering tool, it can only exist in relation to increasing entropy, or disordering.

Abstract wrote:
Is there really in "accordance" when it is pure reactive action? except accordance to the environmental activity that resulted in stimulating the reaction?
Think of it as a vortex in a river.
The water's interaction produces pockets of slower or faster flows....we know these as different forms of matter or energies.
Once in a while these interactions create a congruence of flow which is juxtaposed to the flow of the river. It spins there, self-organizing, facing the attrition of the water's flow around it.
If it survives long enough it might grow in power, offer more resistance, perhaps direct its congruence of energies towards more order...or against the flow of the river...Will to...whatever.
Life begins as a simple reactivity, following paths of least resistance. It then might evolve into a more complex organism and be more willful. At this ponit it might choose a path of more resistance to gain an advantage over other organisms.
This is a survival tactic, entailing an increase of risk and suffering with the hope of higher or longer lasting returns.

An accordance is a congruence of flow which following the path of least resistance benefits from the synergy of flowing in unison, thusly decreasing the effect of resistance to its flow.
Like a current within the ocean characterized by a different temperature and speed of flow in relation to the waters around it.

Abstract wrote:
If we are to look at things in that sense then we must say that all people are equally active in that we are all infinitely active in that there are an infinite number of actions going on in accordance to what we are including not simply heart palpitations but alterations of cellular behavior and what not?
Actions are always reactions or, more precisely, they are interactions. These are governed by a differentiation in energies, or strength, power.
Not all have equal power, energies at their disposal and not all face the same exact interactions, environments.
But all are affected by temporal attrition with a definite end.

Therefore no, actions are limited, not infinite.

Also activity is existence and existence is experienced as need.
Ergo the one who needs less, is approach perfection...omnipotence....and here's the conundrum which makes the finalization of the approach towards the absolute impossible: As one approaches the absolute, the state of godliness if you will, he can be thought of as dropping out of existence.

Abstract wrote:
Not therefore; there can be nothing concluded regarding such I would think, if anything can be concluded regarding anything. omnipotence would not necessarily be contradicted because we do not know what all-powers are or are not, and what are not powers but rather imaginary things we think would be nice if they were powers... like wise that does not necessarily contradict omniscience. ironically given ideas of rebirth ... if one has experienced an infinite number of lives then we are all omniscience, we just don't currently know all things, or all things at one given time except perhaps that one moment that is the entirety of time.
You show an interest in rebirth because as a living organism the idea of living forever appeals to you.
Will to life, for you, is projected in this rebirth metaphor.

Here's the thing, identity is built on memory.
You are not the same person you were at your birth....not even your cells are the same.
So how are you a cohesive entity?
Memory....genes are a form of codified memory; memes are a form of codified, by man this time, memory.
The continuity of flow you call "I" is held together by memory.
Take away this memory or cut it at some point and you lose identity.
This is why the teaching of dismissing the past is a form of amputation or a reduction of self-awareness and self-identification.

What does it matter if you are reborn a million times as nothing is passed on...therefore the "you" in the sentence "you are reborn" is nonsensical.
Christians invented the spirit to deal with this issue.

Abstract wrote:
Some might be... most think of the gods as being manifestations of the one divine entity they think is the ultimate... many call that ultimate brahman some think it is shakti... some shiva... some vishnu... etc... hinduim is realy a polytheoristic religion... there are atheist Hindu sects...
There are varieties of spiritual dogmas built around monism.
They all have certain things in common.

A true polytheist, a pagan, rejects any idea of a singular divine authority: a dictatorship of God.
To a pagan only submission and respect towards nature is possible.
Nature and its forces symbolized using anthropomorphic concepts. A true pagan does not go outside reality to justify his existence or his beliefs.

Abstract wrote:
Seems like your lookin at half the circle things go that direction and approach no thingness and then come back around...perhaps...
Because consciousness is a 'looking back' the idea that there is an immutable substance comes about because the apst cannto be changed, thuogh change is occuring all around us.
So this past is immutable and forever mysterious because nobody can ever know all the past.

Life is, as was said, an ordering, just as consciousness is.
Knowledge is a codified, ordered state of sensual awareness.
Therefore life is only possible in this direction of increasing entropy and impossible in the imagined opposite.
In a direction of decreasing entropy all would be ordering and so life would be impossible as it would not be distinguishable or even reactive.

If we think of the Big Bang as not a singular event but an ongoing one then entropy is increasing and decreasing simultaneously, but life is only possible in one direction.
Of course this image of a looping universe is itself a human construct...a method of comprehending artistically, visually, symbolically, what is incomprehensible.
for all we know this looping is not in perfect balance and it is deteriorating....one day to vanish. A membrane amongst many others that also interact with each other in a vast game of creation destruction.

Some things you must pass over in silence.

Abstract wrote:
what did you mean by the first sentence? Selectism?
Typo...it should read: Skepticism.

Abstract wrote:
I am an advocate of asceticism and balance, but I do not cloud it with pseudo-altruism and morality.
Your continued suggested interpretations of my nature continue to be quite inaccurate. I can be considered some what liberal in the literal since of the word given places where it is efficient to do such. Neither did I ask you to care about my ideals, nor are they necessarily progressive as many of them if not all are repetitions of things that have been said before. further i don't desire uniformity if anything i am bored and find it fun to see reductions in suffering because it is a challenging thing to attempt puzzling. In fact i am quite open to what is the most logical consideration or thought such as to inform action and so must say i find this particular ad hom of yours as rather ill with regards to logically convincing me of any particular mode of thought...not that I am suggesting you are attempting such necessarily.[/quote]Deciphering you and all people is a hobby of mine.
As this medium only provides me with abstractions, I only have them to go by.

----------------------------
Abstract wrote:
If life gives direction and life springs from the
universe then the universe is what initially directed and thus directs
life, isn't it... what allows life to magically be able to direct things
any more then anything else?
There is no magically.
Man is the only entity which can projects abstractions so as to direct his own actions.....making them more efficient and effective.
We might consider man as a germinating god...a piece of the Flow trying to attain absolute order, by reaching the "desirable" destination of perfection or a singular Being...a Becoming wanting to finally Be.
This too is a nihilistic tendency.

The universe is just Flux...that a life form emerges with self-destructive tendencies or awakens to its own existence and finds in it anxiety and more pain and suffering (because more awareness leads to more suffering) is really a parenthesis in the entire process.
The universe has no direction. Man projects abstractions to give himself a direction...a focus for his flow (Will).

Abstract wrote:
Is it perhaps an abstraction to think that the universe is or isn't a separate from consciousness in the first place?
Consciousness is a part of the universe awaking to itself...just as self-consciousness is a part of consciousness awakening to itself.
In both cases consciousness is not complete and always a process...a tool of survival.

This awakening is always accompanied with dissatisfaction...and coming to terms with this or dealing with this, is part of the human condition.
There is no consciousness outside life. Consciousness is developing, evolving.

"Desire" is the focus upon an object/objective.
Desire is the Will focused.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:09 am

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Can you explain how it is that you reason that you need to live?
There is no choice without life.

Life is an automatic reaction. You don't think about breathing, you do so automatically because you need oxygen.
You can't even will yourself not to breath, although it is reported that Diogenes dies by holding his own breathe...but you can end your automatic breathing by killing yourself.

The automatic processes which are reactions to entropy can only be appreciated after the fact.
Nihilism is partly a questioning of one's own constant and automatic reaffirmation of life.
Life is an ordering....ergo it needs energies to order itself.
I don't feel that exaplains it, to be honest. To start i don't see how there being no choice without life means that living is needed...

why do you need life?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Might depend on how it is meant... at times..as I think many do... I desire to have particular people do things, and thus it could be said that I make effort to convert them in a manner to aid in the accomplishment of what I desire. Though personally I do my best not to do such wherein it is evident that it will do wrong to the given convert. And generally my goals or what I desire is in line with what seems to be what is most likely to justly fulfill the desires of the people...or something like that... (why?....Why not?)
I find people tiresome.
My ambitions are strictly personal.
Others get in the way, slow me down, or divert me from my main goal.

Do I get a sense of power when I do influence someone?
Definitely.
But it does not affect my self-assessment.
That is good, but I wouldn't ever presume that it doesn't, I would only think it doesn't seem likely to be at the given situation.

I once felt that way... i got tired of feeling tired of people...

What is your main goal?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

And even then one does not constantly have to resist... for example if one only want to live for a few ..i don't know 3 days ..they don't have to resist... (unless there happens to be a human eating beast around...stalking them...) they can just sit and do nothing and live without resisting for a time being...
The act of existing as a willful cohesive emergent unity, is an act of aggression.
When you eat, you deny that organism life but you also deny it's nutrients to another.
When you breath you appropriate the oxygen.
When you defend yourself against viruses you resist infiltration asserting your domain.

This is why the Buddhist non-resistance, non-aggression, myth is bullshit.
If you live...you are doing so by resisting, by being selfish and aggressive.
I don't know that Buddhists would say there is anything wrong with the natural human nature to self-care. or as you say it be selfish. If it is something that cannot be avoided then why is it something worth being concerned with? if I take from others they too take from me, how is that not equivalent to sharing? why use the negatively conatated words you choose? why not just call it universal fucking.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
And then do we resist constantly or only for moments or particular periods of time?
Flow is constant...resistance to it is cosntant.....repairing the attrition this produces is constant.
Age is the fatigue that follows.
In time the attrition of retaining cohesion and resisting produces so much damage, accumulated through time, that the combined energies under the organism's control become insufficient to deal with it. At that point the organism begins to decline and then it dies.

Time is both a blessing and a curse.
Nietzsche's overman was the future man who has overcome the resentment this produces in the aware mind.
It is the overcoming of resentment towards the very thing which makes life possible...in a sense it is an overcoming of self-hate.

Much of liberal politics, this denial and dismissal of the past, is a hidden self-hatred as one hates or wishes to forget the very circumstances that brought him about.
I can see that though I don't know that there is a whole lot of denial of the past..dismissal maybe...

How will the nietzsche of the overmen of the future define their overmen?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
And then in order to say it is resistance doesn't that require the belief in free-will... otherwise everything is predetermined and we are really just going with the flow, right?
I've said this before but since you ask I'll say it again.
Free-will is a self-contradicting concept.

When I will, I will what I do not posses, but only in degree, I will what I lack absolutely...ergo Will to power and Will to life.
I will what I need...ergo I am dependent on its attainment.
Therefore I am not independent...not free.

Free-will, for me is about increasing ones approach towards the absolute.
The closer I get to it, without ever finishing the job, the more free I become....and this is accompanied by an indifference since to not need, to be free, is to be indifferent.
then if there is no free will we are not resisting anything we are just a particle moving around bumping into shit here and there.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Without thought there is no recognition of anything being ordered or disordered. so perhaps both require perception?
Yes, but you are talknig about the after emergence of consciousness, out of this ordering, and then self-consciousness.
a "particular" ordering perhaps, ot simply ordering as if from disorder? isn't everything already ordered anyways, in some way or another. Perhaps disorder does not even exist rather orders that are not recognizable by the human mind are what we choose to call disordered.

Satyr wrote:

This is why you understand yourself after-the-fact...as consciousness is a looking back.
By the time you've conceptualized the phenomenon that stimulated your sense organs it has ceased to be as it was...because flow is constant.
Therefore you are perceiving, no matter how fast your analytical ability is, the world that was.
This makes the liberal notion of forgetting the past or dismissing it, more ironic, as it constitutes a diminishment of consciousness.

If we are all the sum of our pasts, then knowing yourself (Know Thyself) is knowing your past and accepting it.
Dismissing it is a form of self denial and a dumbing-down.
The system benefits from it because a less self-aware mind is a mind more desperate to find identity in the more immediate past.
The system offers its artifices, its social statuses and its values to fill in the void it produced by training the mind to dismiss the past as primitive or irrelevant or an illusion.
why dismiss the past when you can just dismiss any negative connotation with it instead. or rather not dismiss but replace.

Satyr wrote:

The mind is lost, cut off from its heritage. It does not even accept its own nature as being determining.
It is a tabula rasa, Sartre's terror of his delusional absolute freedom.
Sartre was a douche-bag.
Man is not free, as he is contingent and a product of a past he cannot change.
Man strives for freedom, by slowly diverting his path willfully and against the determinations of the past.
Freedom is another word for the absent.
It is nihilism. To be absolutely free is to need nothing, noone; it is to be omnipotent and omniscient...indifferent.
To be God is to be a singularity that requires nothing.
Consciousness is an ordering, and so the absolutely ordered would require no ordering.
What would an omniscience Being do with consciousness? Thinking would be obsolete.

The only way around this dilemma is a simple baptism:
You just call the ordering order....or you call change perfection.
Now we are dealing with semantics.
To make it all make sense you redefine existence as an illusion, or you make it into some kind of staging area, a purgatory awaiting the more real reality.
The world is degraded into a fake, an undesirable one.
Do you think I am your concept of what a Buddhist is, or a Buddhist at all?

...If existence is an illusion then an illusion is all there is and it is thus what is real, and thus not really an illusion.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
but to be honest maybe I have lost track of some of the context or something but I don't know that I follow what you mean by need being the consciousness of a linear flow?
Entropy is increasing.
In fact as time passes and order decreases entropy is speeding up.
Life is an ordering in this disordering...ergo it needs...and it suffers because it resists the flow of time.
Most things in life seem to me to go up and down like a wave, and different things we humans see at different stages of the up and down, some we see go through both a few times others many... it seems inevitable that there would be some wave form perhaps as entropy that throughout humanities entire life span would be increasing... only to be seen doing otherwise by some other existence...if ever a thing when being done life is around to see in the first place. (You do realize that entropy just means transference of energy from a higher state to a lower state: thus loss from the higher and gain to the lower?)

Satyr wrote:

You can't escape suffering because to suffer is synonymous with living. You can, however, build up your tolerance, momentarily as age deals with that as well, increasing your possibility for comfort. Comfort is a state where the energies under your willful control are sufficient to deal with entropy.
If you can escape suffering for 5 minutes you can do it for 6... if 6 then 100... etc... but everything is a circle and eventually you will return, and that is good because not suffering gets boring. Yet one can experience a life with no suffering. or very very little, and achieve a state where there is not exactly suffering yet there might be physical pain... that is hard to get over but excepting it means it is not "suffering" it is just pain... another feeling of the many feelings. "pain" is a neurological response anyways, one only used to warn such as to aid assurance of survival. In other words one does not need to allow themselves to be discontented by pain, even if one wants to still call it a form of suffering.

Satyr wrote:

Consciousness is the awareness of existence...which is increasing in entropy resulting in need which if left unsatisfied builds up into suffering.
So, being conscious is the awareness of flow towards increasing entropy...which is the only direction life is possible in - the arrow of time.
There are other direction, dimensions, but your mind being an ordering tool, it can only exist in relation to increasing entropy, or disordering.
rather an alteration of things from a higher state of ordering in accordance to the abstractions of the mind of man to a lower state of order according to the abstractions of man.


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Not therefore; there can be nothing concluded regarding such I would think, if anything can be concluded regarding anything. omnipotence would not necessarily be contradicted because we do not know what all-powers are or are not, and what are not powers but rather imaginary things we think would be nice if they were powers... like wise that does not necessarily contradict omniscience. ironically given ideas of rebirth ... if one has experienced an infinite number of lives then we are all omniscience, we just don't currently know all things, or all things at one given time except perhaps that one moment that is the entirety of time.
You show an interest in rebirth because as a living organism the idea of living forever appeals to you.
Will to life, for you, is projected in this rebirth metaphor.
not necessarily it would get boring and inevitably a life would be experienced where one is in a hell state, I would think. it is nonetheless an interesting consideration in this case.

Satyr wrote:

Here's the thing, identity is built on memory.
You are not the same person you were at your birth....not even your cells are the same.
So how are you a cohesive entity?
Memory....genes are a form of codified memory; memes are a form of codified, by man this time, memory.
The continuity of flow you call "I" is held together by memory.
Take away this memory or cut it at some point and you lose identity.
This is why the teaching of dismissing the past is a form of amputation or a reduction of self-awareness and self-identification.

What does it matter if you are reborn a million times as nothing is passed on...therefore the "you" in the sentence "you are reborn" is nonsensical.
Christians invented the spirit to deal with this issue.
I don't believe in a soul/spirit. at the most there is simply that which is all that is a result and or a part of what you are were and will be...or something...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Some might be... most think of the gods as being manifestations of the one divine entity they think is the ultimate... many call that ultimate brahman some think it is shakti... some shiva... some vishnu... etc... hinduim is realy a polytheoristic religion... there are atheist Hindu sects...
There are varieties of spiritual dogmas built around monism.
They all have certain things in common.

A true polytheist, a pagan, rejects any idea of a singular divine authority: a dictatorship of God.
To a pagan only submission and respect towards nature is possible.
Nature and its forces symbolized using anthropomorphic concepts. A true pagan does not go outside reality to justify his existence or his beliefs.
Some call nature God... there are proclaimed pagans that would disagree with your choice of definition. as well as some dictionaries i imagine... and technically .. well...i don't know about all Christians, but many religious groups consider God and all that stuff to be inside or rather a part of or in actuality reality.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Seems like your lookin at half the circle things go that direction and approach no thingness and then come back around...perhaps...
Because consciousness is a 'looking back' the idea that there is an immutable substance comes about because the apst cannto be changed, thuogh change is occuring all around us.
So this past is immutable and forever mysterious because nobody can ever know all the past.
people change the past all the time... all you need is a powerful government and a bunch of good writers.

Satyr wrote:

Life is, as was said, an ordering, just as consciousness is.
Knowledge is a codified, ordered state of sensual awareness.
Therefore life is only possible in this direction of increasing entropy and impossible in the imagined opposite.
In a direction of decreasing entropy all would be ordering and so life would be impossible as it would not be distinguishable or even reactive.

If we think of the Big Bang as not a singular event but an ongoing one then entropy is increasing and decreasing simultaneously, but life is only possible in one direction.
I don't know about that it seems plausible that some weird as form of life could from.

Satyr wrote:

Of course this image of a looping universe is itself a human construct...a method of comprehending artistically, visually, symbolically, what is incomprehensible.
for all we know this looping is not in perfect balance and it is deteriorating....one day to vanish. A membrane amongst many others that also interact with each other in a vast game of creation destruction.
or it is increasing to eventually become a firery state of severely fast constant change...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
what did you mean by the first sentence? Selectism?
Typo...it should read: Skepticism.
that is actually what i got with the google search...pretty handy tool indeed...

Satyr wrote:

Deciphering you and all people is a hobby of mine.
As this medium only provides me with abstractions, I only have them to go by.
Indeed. I will be hard because I change my beliefs fast...If I have any...which I have to question...

----------------------------
Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
If life gives direction and life springs from the
universe then the universe is what initially directed and thus directs
life, isn't it... what allows life to magically be able to direct things
any more then anything else?
There is no magically.
Man is the only entity which can projects abstractions so as to direct his own actions.....making them more efficient and effective.
We might consider man as a germinating god...a piece of the Flow trying to attain absolute order, by reaching the "desirable" destination of perfection or a singular Being...a Becoming wanting to finally Be.
This too is a nihilistic tendency.
You mean man is the only entity...on earth...or that we know of currently? (dogs are capable of levels of abstracting.)

Satyr wrote:

The universe is just Flux...that a life form emerges with self-destructive tendencies or awakens to its own existence and finds in it anxiety and more pain and suffering (because more awareness leads to more suffering) is really a parenthesis in the entire process.
The universe has no direction. Man projects abstractions to give himself a direction...a focus for his flow (Will).
Are you being sarcastic when you say that more awareness is more suffering? I think rather that shifts, at one point i though my level of awareness was suffering then i got more aware and that changed, maybe if i get more so it will change again... maybe it is a continually fluxing state from suffering due to a state of awareness to not suffering due to the next state. to finally realizing that an then what?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Is it perhaps an abstraction to think that the universe is or isn't a separate from consciousness in the first place?
Consciousness is a part of the universe awaking to itself...just as self-consciousness is a part of consciousness awakening to itself.
In both cases consciousness is not complete and always a process...a tool of survival.

This awakening is always accompanied with dissatisfaction...and coming to terms with this or dealing with this, is part of the human condition.
There is no consciousness outside life. Consciousness is developing, evolving.

"Desire" is the focus upon an object/objective.
Desire is the Will focused.
I don't see how that answers that particular question but rather continues your discourse of interest. How is it not an abstraction to think that life is separate from the universe it is just one branch of the tree is it not?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:28 am

So....is everyone with Withoutmusic on being against action?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:07 am

Are you?

I hold to my initial post
phoneutria wrote:
Nothing in excess
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:43 am

phoneutria wrote:
Are you?
I seem to be performing actions regularly so I seem to be pro-action. As I said earlier I do wish many people acted less. Period. I am not optimistic about what their analyses would produce, however. I also think most intellectuals and academics spend too much time analyzing. If we are going to generalize, I would prefer they went out and had some new experiences. If they are analyzing political issues, probably better to spend some of that time in situ - whatever that the relevent context is. So much looks cute and perky in the mind and has little connection or use 'out there.' People seem to get into experiential grooves at an early age and repeat.
Quote :

I hold to my initial post
phoneutria wrote:
Nothing in excess
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:38 am

I'm certain that those poor children dying of starvation, themselves, care very little for theory.
One can't theorize too well over a roaring stomach.

The privilege of sitting in the shade is for the very few.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:47 pm

Abstract wrote:
I don't feel that exaplains it, to be honest. To start i don't see how there being no choice without life means that living is needed...
Why do you need life?
You don't need life, life is how you experience existence....it being constant change, increasing entropy, interpreted as need.

The universe doesn't need anything...it does not think nor interpret, it just is.
It is Flux and the absolute, the ordered, the perfect, the one, is absent.
Life is a product of this universe, as constant interaction which resists change, disordering.
This resistance is experienced as need.

Abstract wrote:
What is your main goal?
To be the best that I can be...to know as much as I can know...to understand as much as I can understand...to experience life as fully and as deeply as I possibly can.
To, perhaps, pass on these experiences, but this is not necessary.
Then to die at peace.

Abstract wrote:
I don't know that Buddhists would say there is anything wrong with the natural human nature to self-care. or as you say it be selfish. If it is something that cannot be avoided then why is it something worth being concerned with?
Why be concerned?
What?
Heidegger says that we are thrown into a state of caring. To live is to care.
Concerned?
You think not talking about things is best?
No wait, you think that when you do talk about them and they are positive then that is intelligent, whereas if they are negative then one must pretend that none of it is happening.

Right....so if you can't do anything about it, then why speak of it at all?
That about eliminates 90% of all philosophical discourse.
No you ain't liberal you just sound that way.

Abstract wrote:
if I take from others they too take from me, how is that not equivalent to sharing?
So, for you the exchange is equal?
I have to admire you liberals, you exist in such pristine environments.
It must be all the sheltering or the bull;shit you tell yourselves to go on living.

Abstract wrote:
why use the negatively conatated words you choose? why not just call it universal fucking.
Excellent point...or we can call it orgasms, never analyzing what it means.
I think choosing to be obtuse must be a noble choice.

"Negative" connotations?
Are you projecting your reactions to my definitions?
If you don't dare ask why you must choose at all, then do not.

Anyway, you remember that fatigue factor I spoke about....and that "sharing" which is never equal?
I think I'm feeling the aftereffects.

Abstract wrote:
How will the nietzsche of the overmen of the future define their overmen?
I'll have to rub my crystal balls and get back to you no that one.

Abstract wrote:
then if there is no free will we are not resisting anything we are just a particle moving around bumping into shit here and there.
I don't think you are following.
Freedom is the absolute, or a version of it, which is missing.
If there is only multiplicity and degrees, never a completion, then freedom is not equally absent in all unities.
Some are more free than others.

Abstract wrote:
a "particular" ordering perhaps, ot simply ordering as if from disorder? isn't everything already ordered anyways, in some way or another. Perhaps disorder does not even exist rather orders that are not recognizable by the human mind are what we choose to call disordered.
Then you already know the answer.
Might as well believe in God.
The usage of ignorance to support any delusion out there, is a common practice.
Christians regularly claim that man does not know enough to dismiss the existence of God.

I only deal in probabilities, never discounting any possibility, but relegating some to such a low percentage as to make them nonsense.

I think that if you feel ordered and lacking in nothing, needing nothing, then you are most certainly a higher breed of man.
I cannot match you in this... as I could not match the brave soul who told me that he fears nothing.
I can't trick myself enough to live up to such bravado and states of enlightenment. I have too much integrity to even pretend to myself....although lying to others is fun.

Abstract wrote:
why dismiss the past when you can just dismiss any negative connotation with it instead. or rather not dismiss but replace.
Another excellent point. Well I see I've been wasting my time here.
Please feel free to selectively choose from the past and then to twist it in any form you like.

I'll replace my past immediately by completely forgetting this ever happened.

Are you British?
I knew a chap like you once. Endless questions and then directing ones, offering his own preferences in the form of an inquisitive sentence.

I grant you the privilege of dismissing or forgetting or interpreting the past in any manner you find agreeable, as being made to feel well is what intellectual exploration is all about, no?
If it does not feel good then it should be remade to feel good, and if it is unflattering or hurtful then it should not be mentioned at all; it should not even be thought.

Abstract wrote:
Do you think I am your concept of what a Buddhist is, or a Buddhist at all?
My, my, the Socratic method turns more personal.

How nihilism became a staple in the east, or how it expressed the docility, stupidity, monism, absolutism a civilization overpopulated and facing resource pressures, it required to establish stable unities, is far ahead than how it is occuring in the west, for the past one-thousand, or so, years.

What is the Buddha other than the one who is in a state of unconscious consciousness?

Abstract wrote:
...If existence is an illusion then an illusion is all there is and it is thus what is real, and thus not really an illusion.
Such mind-twisters hoping to appear like they are making sense.
Let me see if I can do it:
If black is white, then blackness is light, and the real is illuminated for all to see.

If shit is caviar, then its taste is an acquired one, meant for those that dare to rethink reality, and to remake it as they please.

Abstract wrote:
Most things in life seem to me to go up and down like a wave, and different things we humans see at different stages of the up and down, some we see go through both a few times others many... it seems inevitable that there would be some wave form perhaps as entropy that throughout humanities entire life span would be increasing... only to be seen doing otherwise by some other existence...if ever a thing when being done life is around to see in the first place. (You do realize that entropy just means transference of energy from a higher state to a lower state: thus loss from the higher and gain to the lower?)
You do realize that all that I've said and you say is but a human construct meant to make sense of a reality which one can never make sense of fully.

You begin with a projected assumed, given, which you have no way to justify other than that it completes the mental model you require to feel like you understand, that you are "enlightened", whereas I start from the given, and extrapolate the rest by using it, without buying into the models I construct in a literal sense, but knowing that they are my models, expressing my understanding, existing only in my mind.

Now please instead of god and paradise and Nirvana you speak to me of "higher" planes of existence, or other types of existence, as if you had a clue about what that meant.
Children can indulge in flights of fancy, disconnecting their imagination form the sensual so as to feel like they are soaring above the mud and the animals below.

Abstract wrote:
If you can escape suffering for 5 minutes you can do it for 6... if 6 then 100... etc... but everything is a circle and eventually you will return, and that is good because not suffering gets boring. Yet one can experience a life with no suffering. or very very little, and achieve a state where there is not exactly suffering yet there might be physical pain... that is hard to get over but excepting it means it is not "suffering" it is just pain... another feeling of the many feelings. "pain" is a neurological response anyways, one only used to warn such as to aid assurance of survival. In other words one does not need to allow themselves to be discontented by pain, even if one wants to still call it a form of suffering.
I really have no time for this shit.
I refer you to Schopenhauer.

"Escape suffering"?
Rolling Eyes
Jesus have you been reading anything I've written?

Abstract wrote:
rather an alteration of things from a higher state of ordering in accordance to the abstractions of the mind of man to a lower state of order according to the abstractions of man.
Yes, I know, God above, man below...blah, blah, blah...
I think I'm about done here.

Your questions are becoming tedious and suggestive...but more than that they are indicating a total inability to follow as they revolve around the same things that have already been dealt with or they express a misunderstanding which I, personally, cannot deal with patiently.

Like that shit implying that I said life was "separate" from the world.

Good luck with your non-suffering, non-fearing, non-needing, state of total bliss and of reinventing yourself by changing how you think about your past.
I tried calling a pimple a coin, but it didn't do much for my pocket.


Ta, Ta,

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:21 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
I don't feel that exaplains it, to be honest. To start i don't see how there being no choice without life means that living is needed...
Why do you need life?
You don't need life, life is how you experience existence....it being constant change, increasing entropy, interpreted as need.

The universe doesn't need anything...it does not think nor interpret, it just is.
It is Flux and the absolute, the ordered, the perfect, the one, is absent.
Life is a product of this universe, as constant interaction which resists change, disordering.
This resistance is experienced as need.
Perhaps we agree then, need if it is, is but an aspect of life, because life is not needed nothing is ultimately, only needed in the sense you seem to be using the word that being that it is something one requires to achieve the things they want, be those things chosen desires or not.

It seems to me that it would be fair to define the Flux and the absolute as the perfect and as the one. In fact any mystical ideas probably derive from attempts to categorize this Tao.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
What is your main goal?
To be the best that I can be...to know as much as I can know...to understand as much as I can understand...to experience life as fully and as deeply as I possibly can.
To, perhaps, pass on these experiences, but this is not necessary.
Then to die at peace.
a reasonable goal.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I don't know that Buddhists would say there is anything wrong with the natural human nature to self-care. or as you say it be selfish. If it is something that cannot be avoided then why is it something worth being concerned with?
Why be concerned?
What?
Heidegger says that we are thrown into a state of caring. To live is to care.
Concerned?
You think not talking about things is best?
No wait, you think that when you do talk about them and they are positive then that is intelligent, whereas if they are negative then one must pretend that none of it is happening.
No you misunderstand me, it is one thing to consider another to care... I was using the word care along with its more Latin sense that being that Caro means to have anxiety regarding something. My point was that there is no need to think it is negative. if it is the way things are then it is not negative, except in the sense as negative 1 is to positive 2. but there is no need to be concerned with the human abstraction of the idea of negativity that being along the idea of "badness" or non-contenting...and what not...

In other words why look at it as anything other then an interesting, intriguing, perhaps beautiful aspect of nature.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
if I take from others they too take from me, how is that not equivalent to sharing?
So, for you the exchange is equal?
I have to admire you liberals, you exist in such pristine environments.
It must be all the sheltering or the bull;shit you tell yourselves to go on living.
I often find that people like to label people with words such as "liberal" to find a way of dismissing particular ideas with out actually having to argue them. I never said that I thought the exchange was equal, I was literally asking you a question, you again are misreading what i do as if a question of mine is rhetorical or something.

Perhaps I should ask more clearly.

If one were to steel from others, and others were to steel from that one, in what way would that be different from sharing, and would it necessarily be bad or of a nature for which such a state should be avoided?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
why use the negatively conatated words you choose? why not just call it universal fucking.
Excellent point...or we can call it orgasms, never analyzing what it means.
I think choosing to be obtuse must be a noble choice.

"Negative" connotations?
Are you projecting your reactions to my definitions?
No I could care less personally it doesn't bother me I can speak in the darkest metaphor and be fine, rather I think some of what is being discussed is profound but that speaking of it in negatively connotated forms pushes particular mindsets away from seeing these things in there natural resistance to the negative seeming. And personally regardless of whether that is ignorant or not I would like ignorant people to be educated so that I don't have to suffer a bunch of Christians trying to take over the world because their god told them to do it.

Satyr wrote:

If you don't dare ask why you must choose at all, then do not.

Anyway, you remember that fatigue factor I spoke about....and that "sharing" which is never equal?
I think I'm feeling the aftereffects.
If sharing is never equal then one need only find a way to have someone share back so that they unfairly get more in return. thus balancing the previous exchange with an opposing other exchange.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
then if there is no free will we are not resisting anything we are just a particle moving around bumping into shit here and there.
I don't think you are following.
Freedom is the absolute, or a version of it, which is missing.
If there is only multiplicity and degrees, never a completion, then freedom is not equally absent in all unities.
Some are more free than others.
If that is all there can be then we have freedom redefined. and thus we are free, just not in the ways we would have thought.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
a "particular" ordering perhaps, ot simply ordering as if from disorder? isn't everything already ordered anyways, in some way or another. Perhaps disorder does not even exist rather orders that are not recognizable by the human mind are what we choose to call disordered.
Then you already know the answer.
Might as well believe in God.
The usage of ignorance to support any delusion out there, is a common practice.
Christians regularly claim that man does not know enough to dismiss the existence of God.
So you are thinking of order in the since that it implies something having to exist to have put it in order, but you see that is not how I think of the word. to me things the red blue orange yellow beads in front of me that are strewn on the floor are already in a order, I can give them a different order and I can give them an order that is one a-typical primarily to having been ordered by intelligent life.

Satyr wrote:

I only deal in probabilities, never discounting any possibility, but relegating some to such a low percentage as to make them nonsense.
ditto.


Satyr wrote:

I think that if you feel ordered and lacking in nothing, needing nothing, then you are most certainly a higher breed of man.
I cannot match you in this... as I could not match the brave soul who told me that he fears nothing.
I can't trick myself enough to live up to such bravado and states of enlightenment. I have too much integrity to even pretend to myself....although lying to others is fun.
Tricking oneself would be pointless, if it comes it comes, maybe it comes after one gets board of the mode of thinking you are in now. Which may or may not happen in a lifetime.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
why dismiss the past when you can just dismiss any negative connotation with it instead. or rather not dismiss but replace.
Another excellent point. Well I see I've been wasting my time here.
Please feel free to selectively choose from the past and then to twist it in any form you like.

I'll replace my past immediately by completely forgetting this ever happened.
Completely missed when I defined replacement as being replacing the connotation? what I meant was why look at it as if something is bad instead of look at something to be concerned with but just the way shit happens to be. It is natural, meant to be, and thus good.

You seem to be rushing to find ways to interpret what I say such as to fulfill your preconceived notions.

Satyr wrote:

Are you British?
I knew a chap like you once. Endless questions and then directing ones, offering his own preferences in the form of an inquisitive sentence.
That is part of your problem you presume I am doing that, or I guess being manipulative, when I am not, though I do give directing questions such as to get to what I see as being the issue or the root of the problem. And I do sometimes offer what I think, not to be preferred, but current as seeming to be logical, and if in a questioning form because I do not know for sure how to think of them and seek others thoughts in regards to it.

Satyr wrote:

I grant you the privilege of dismissing or forgetting or interpreting the past in any manner you find agreeable, as being made to feel well is what intellectual exploration is all about, no?
If it does not feel good then it should be remade to feel good, and if it is unflattering or hurtful then it should not be mentioned at all; it should not even be thought.
I have not said that I dismiss the past or choose to forget it or interpret it in agreeable ways. I interpret things as best I can as they seem to be, and in regards to the nature of them being what might irritate some and thus be called "bad" or "good" I simply don't give a shit... because I can enjoy thing contentedly being as they are, perhaps simply because I don't give a shit.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Do you think I am your concept of what a Buddhist is, or a Buddhist at all?
My, my, the Socratic method turns more personal.

How nihilism became a staple in the east, or how it expressed the docility, stupidity, monism, absolutism a civilization overpopulated and facing resource pressures, it required to establish stable unities, is far ahead than how it is occuring in the west, for the past one-thousand, or so, years.

What is the Buddha other than the one who is in a state of unconscious consciousness?
Well that doesn't answer the question at all... I was litterally interested in what your perception of my views on life were, as what ever that perception of yours is it seems to be informing the manner in which you are interpreting what I say and it is preventing us it would seem from communicating fully what I or perhaps both of us mean.

It is hard to say what the buddha is considering the evolution of religions that occur throughout time, should one try to understand it as the Gautama himself understood it all or as people now think it should be understood.

I would think the most reasonable thoughts that can be divulged from such is that the buddha mind is of the nature of realizing that the will or consciousness is but a determined state resultant of the environment or habitat one exists in including that of the genetic body, such that thereby the self is un-reasonable distinction from that which simply is everything interwoven and fluxing. Thus I gather that the Buddhist idea of the no-self is that of recognition of the "self" just being a point wherein action intersects within reality...or something... Of course there are many schools of Buddhism with many different interpretation such that no idea as of any religion is really going to be considered universally accurate... so then what really is the point in necessarily identifying with any particular "religion" when they all are undefined really anyways at this point. The above I think I can agree with beyond that I don't know what to say about Buddhism.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
...If existence is an illusion then an illusion is all there is and it is thus what is real, and thus not really an illusion.
Such mind-twisters hoping to appear like they are making sense.
Let me see if I can do it:
If black is white, then blackness is light, and the real is illuminated for all to see.

If shit is caviar, then its taste is an acquired one, meant for those that dare to rethink reality, and to remake it as they please.
I honestly thought you would agree with that. the irony is that the point of me saying that was to point out that your seeming idea that I believed that everything is an illusion was wrong.

Its simple logic, reality is all that is
if illusion is all that is
then illusion is reality
but illusion is supposed to be the opposite of reailty thus we have that the opposites don't exist, there is no illusion its not fake, everything just is, and it is real.

The illusion I think that is typically meant to be talked about by most who say "everything is illusion' is that of the illusion that things are bad or good perhaps. when in reality those are compartmentalizations of human mentality. things may be harmful or helpful, but regardless there is no need to let the prospect of either irritate the personage and thus let the illusion of the negativity of either be relevant. Rather one should deal with the problem then let anxiety prevent full capacity of effort.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Most things in life seem to me to go up and down like a wave, and different things we humans see at different stages of the up and down, some we see go through both a few times others many... it seems inevitable that there would be some wave form perhaps as entropy that throughout humanities entire life span would be increasing... only to be seen doing otherwise by some other existence...if ever a thing when being done life is around to see in the first place. (You do realize that entropy just means transference of energy from a higher state to a lower state: thus loss from the higher and gain to the lower?)
You do realize that all that I've said and you say is but a human construct meant to make sense of a reality which one can never make sense of fully.
You don't think I think to make sense of it fully do you, but I do think I am going to walk the path even if there isn't an end because what the fuck else do I have to do?

Satyr wrote:

You begin with a projected assumed, given, which you have no way to justify other than that it completes the mental model you require to feel like you understand, that you are "enlightened", whereas I start from the given, and extrapolate the rest by using it, without buying into the models I construct in a literal sense, but knowing that they are my models, expressing my understanding, existing only in my mind.
So you are saying that you are not beginning with the projected assumption that particular things are given? To do anything one must begin with an axiom, there is no starting truth, you just start and work shit out as you go.

Satyr wrote:

Now please instead of god and paradise and Nirvana you speak to me of "higher" planes of existence, or other types of existence, as if you had a clue about what that meant.
When did I ever say anything of there actually being a "higher" plane of existence, especially in this conversation?


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
If you can escape suffering for 5 minutes you can do it for 6... if 6 then 100... etc... but everything is a circle and eventually you will return, and that is good because not suffering gets boring. Yet one can experience a life with no suffering. or very very little, and achieve a state where there is not exactly suffering yet there might be physical pain... that is hard to get over but excepting it means it is not "suffering" it is just pain... another feeling of the many feelings. "pain" is a neurological response anyways, one only used to warn such as to aid assurance of survival. In other words one does not need to allow themselves to be discontented by pain, even if one wants to still call it a form of suffering.
I really have no time for this shit.
I refer you to Schopenhauer.

"Escape suffering"?
Rolling Eyes
Jesus have you been reading anything I've written?
The moment I use the word your eyes are clouded by your preconceived notions, you haven't even made an attempt to read what I say in a way that alludes to any ideas that you have not thought of. I am getting tired of discussing things with you myself because it seems all you do is ad hom instead of legitimately provide arguments to show that what I suggest is not plausible. That is a behavior I see many teenagers do. You do not know what I mean when I suggest not suffering. I am not implying anything about the pain not being there I am suggesting not giving a shit is about all I am suggesting.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
rather an alteration of things from a higher state of ordering in accordance to the abstractions of the mind of man to a lower state of order according to the abstractions of man.
Yes, I know, God above, man below...blah, blah, blah...
I think I'm about done here.
wtf? you are pulling shit out of your ass as if it applies to me. I have not said or intended anything to do with God. What I was trying to get across to you again is the idea that things being ordered or disordered is but a matter of perception; it takes a mind to recognize a thing as being one or another. And thus that one thing is going from one state to another itself is an abstraction.

Satyr wrote:

Your questions are becoming tedious and suggestive...but more than that they are indicating a total inability to follow as they revolve around the same things that have already been dealt with or they express a misunderstanding which I, personally, cannot deal with patiently.

Like that shit implying that I said life was "separate" from the world.

Good luck with your non-suffering, non-fearing, non-needing, state of total bliss and of reinventing yourself by changing how you think about your past.
I tried calling a pimple a coin, but it didn't do much for my pocket.


Ta, Ta,

Alright...
No what you did is I provided propositions... but because you are to much of an idiot to literate actual logical arguments against what I have said,(or actually read what I have said without filling in with your ideas of what I should mean) and despite the probability that you may actually have reasonable thoughts against them, you are incapable of doing such and thus resort to presuming that I am talking about things and implying things that I am not. Largely this is due I think to an over egotistical idea you have of thinking you are more intelligent then you actually are. When I can out right say that you are an idiot considering that it took you until you were 45 to still be in the particular crack of thought that you are stuck in. that at this point of age you probably won't get out of and will continue being in until death. but that is fine. And your not going to like this because you reserve a great deal of importance in regards to intelligence and intellect. And like wise in recognition by your self that you are an intelligent and intellectual person put a large amount of importance in your self. I'm sure you would not argue with that last bit. The only thing I would say is that such thinking can limit growth to a good deal because it provides a resistance to learning in that at certain times when you come across something that is logical but challenges what you have been thinking for a long time it thereby challenges your intelligence and due to resistance to admit that you are less grand then you like to think of ( because you think grandness has deeply to do with intelligence) your self you unintentionally and thus subconsciously refuse to accept a more logical proposition (not that I am saying I have provided any here).
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:16 pm

Abstract wrote:
Perhaps we agree then, need if it is, is but an aspect of life, because life is not needed nothing is ultimately, only needed in the sense you seem to be using the word that being that it is something one requires to achieve the things they want, be those things chosen desires or not.
You continue to construct false dichotomies...as in life is other than need, like self, or essence, or spirit, is other than appearance.
As if life is something which just happens to need...or has need cast upon it.

I can only conclude that the problem with you is both intellectual and psychological as both are part of one of the same mental disposition.

Self-consciousness follows the emergence of consciousness, and consciousness follows the emergence of life...I wonder why you cannot connect your emerging self-consciousness to your automatic life responses, as you grasp life with every moment and then claim that you do not need it, contradicting your own automated life affirming mechanisms, with an intellectual fart, trying to preserve the notion that you are other than your body...or that you are life which just happens to feel or need or exist.

Abstract wrote:
It seems to me that it would be fair to define the Flux and the absolute as the perfect and as the one. In fact any mystical ideas probably derive from attempts to categorize this Tao.
You can define shit as edible bio-matter, for all I care.
Words come so easy...particularly to those desperate to hide their nature and existence behind a vale of shadows and myths and comforting bullshit.

If you look into your existence and find in your suffering, and ceaseless need, and your deterioration, and aging, and in your ignorance and fear and cowardice an inkling of perfection...then go with it.
Call yourself God, so as to make-up for that absence.

Words are metaphors for sensations.
You could give the term red to the color blue...and it wouldn't change a thing.
You can call your suffering perfection, and still you could not escape it.

Abstract wrote:
No you misunderstand me, it is one thing to consider another to care... I was using the word care along with its more Latin sense that being that Caro means to have anxiety regarding something. My point was that there is no need to think it is negative. if it is the way things are then it is not negative, except in the sense as negative 1 is to positive 2. but there is no need to be concerned with the human abstraction of the idea of negativity that being along the idea of "badness" or non-contenting...and what not...
Anxiety is perfectly correct, my princess.
Fear you can call it.
If not knowing or your death does not fill you with anxiety then you must be a rare breed of princess: the self-deluding kind, which tends towards social myths to preserve the lie that they are "enlightened" or courageous or that they've overcome or that they've found eternal happiness. Then again inebriation is known to create this same sense of carefree carelessness....and religion is always the opiate of the masses.
Glad to find one more representative of the banal, boring, mediocrities out there.
For a moment I thought you were not...oh well.

Now you go ahead and offer semantics separating what you feel from what you idolize...your mind from your body.

Negative is always in regards to human life, or to life in general. It is a way of differentiating things....categorizing them...as all concepts are.

Abstract wrote:
In other words why look at it as anything other then an interesting, intriguing, perhaps beautiful aspect of nature.
I don't, but you seem to think that doing so eliminates what they imply.
I guess using tender, kind words is your way of dismissing what you know is there and is coming...so as to appear, to yourself, as objective and brave, when you can't help but be a a coward immersed in subjectivity.

It's a wonderment to me....
Your reaction to the words I was using, although not intended to cause emotional stress, and your addiction to using less "negative", more Hollywood type words, so the kids do not get distressed, tells me that you haven't overcome your own nature.
Shall I soften the verbiage to not cause pain....and to fall into the popular bullshit which must twist reality into a positive?

Reality is NOT positive, princess. At least not in regards to life, where the concepts of positive and negative even dare to make sense.
Life is a struggle....suffering, constant stress...of varying degrees...uncertainty, ignorance etc.
Life demands effort, princess...and then in the end it loses anyway. It passes the buck, if it is lucky or it perishes only to be forgotten.
do you remember your great, great, great, great, great grandmammies name? Do you know who she was, what she liked, what she was like?

It's this that makes it precious and valuable and noble.

Abstract wrote:
I often find that people like to label people with words such as "liberal" to find a way of dismissing particular ideas with out actually having to argue them. I never said that I thought the exchange was equal, I was literally asking you a question, you again are misreading what i do as if a question of mine is rhetorical or something.
Your questions are leading, princess, and that you ask certain noes when I've answered them or that you ask them in a way that exposes your inability to follow, is what is tiresome.
You are a liberal little princess, no matter what you call yourself.

You want reality to be chewed up for you...given to you like a mother offers food, with ease and comfort and without any of the bloodshed and sweat.

Abstract wrote:
Perhaps I should ask more clearly.
Perhaps you should think more clearly...but this is more a genetic limit than anything else.
Your last questions pointed to a total misunderstanding of everything I've said.
Now I can think you are doing this deliberately, or I can think you are a moron....so which is it?

How many fuckin' times have I said life IS....IS.... you moron, need/suffering.
There is no gap....life is THAT which suffers or needs...there is no division of mind/body.
Need/Suffering IS the sensation of Life.

Then you follow up with "I don't need life".
Fuck princess, and here you are contradicting this fact because you wish to retain your innocence and the sense that you do not need anything.
Are you that happy, dear?
Princess, you need oxygen and food and companionship etc...all of which are sensations of your particular form of existence...your biology, your ephemeral nature...your life.
All of them point to an absence in you...which you seek elsewhere, outside of you: in the other.

Now, whether a princess like you can accept this as a need, or if it wishes to call it a dick or a feather or a color or call it godliness, does not matter.
You seek outside yourself....and you might call this an illusion but this is why you are a delicate princess, wanting more to be comforted than to see herself as what she is.
Call it perfection, for all I care...call your dependence independence...what the fuck does it matter what a retard calls it, it does not change a thing?
A fat woman can call her fat slender, or an ugly man can call his ugliness beauty, what the hell do I care, princess?
A hungry man can call his hunger fullness, and, does it change a thing about its nature; does the word matter...does the declaration and change in perspective alter the fact?

Abstract wrote:
If one were to steel from others, and others were to steel from that one, in what way would that be different from sharing, and would it necessarily be bad or of a nature for which such a state should be avoided?
In no way.
If you kill a lamb to eat it...and part of it eventually winds up in the soil from where new grass will grow for new lambs to eat and new wolves to feast on these lambs, what changes?
Whether you are coerced or seduced into giving and in evaluating what you receive as a good trade off, what does it matter to anyone but you?

If you find pleasure in a friend's company and he finds whatever he does in yours, there is an exchange....and it is never equal. Ergo, princess, all friendships are characterized by competition and conflict and some hatred.
I know a princes, like you, might be hurt by this; by its callousness and cruelty, but who the fuck cares about what you feel, except you?

Abstract wrote:
No I could care less personally it doesn't bother me I can speak in the darkest metaphor and be fine, rather I think some of what is being discussed is profound but that speaking of it in negatively connotated forms pushes particular mindsets away from seeing these things in there natural resistance to the negative seeming. And personally regardless of whether that is ignorant or not I would like ignorant people to be educated so that I don't have to suffer a bunch of Christians trying to take over the world because their god told them to do it.
Your persistent usage of negative/positive in a literal sense, that emotionally base duality, tells me that you are a christian mind.
There is no such thing as positive and negative outside human interests.

The current social and cultural atmosphere is full of constant "positivity". All is made loving, innocuous...all turns out well, the loser wins, all find love, the weak become strong, the loser is victor...the nice guy gets the girl.
Fuck you and your Jude-Christian bullshit.
I return the discussion to balance when it has diverted towards the infantile and the romantic idealism of liberal dimwits, like you, princess.
I'm not going to call shit feces, so that your delicate sensitivities are not offended. I'm going to call it SHIT!!! because for far too long female dispositions, like yours, have been comforted with tender words and soft metaphors.

Shall I call death a "gateway to a better world" so as to adhere to your positivity, princess?
Maybe I can call exploitation, a delicate misunderstanding requiring re-balancing, so that you are not bothered by bad dreams tonight?

What shall I call order in regard to entropy?
Let's see...how about flowers? No....that's too prissy...how about enlightenment?
So life is not fragmenting into death but it is being "enlightened" towards it. It is being transformed into ....light.

You are not stupid and simple but you are intellectually troubled and challenged.
You are too deep for intelligence.

Abstract wrote:
If sharing is never equal then one need only find a way to have someone share back so that they unfairly get more in return. thus balancing the previous exchange with an opposing other exchange.
Yes of course my liberal princess, because equity is absolutely possible and it is desirable...as no man should seek an advantage over another but give unto others of his extra robe.
Justice right?

No, princess, you aren't a liberal cunt...you are wrongly labeled and the term is so unfortunate.
I would say vagina instead, but cunt seems more appropriate.
After all isn't Will to power but it is about shared power?
We are all here to share and love and be free...together.

Abstract wrote:
If that is all there can be then we have freedom redefined. and thus we are free, just not in the ways we would have thought.
I know...it's all a matter of words...
I'll call myself immortal from now on...or a God.

When hungry I'll say "I am full. I am fullness."
That should do it.
A change of word suffices to deal with the pain and the "negativity".

Abstract wrote:
So you are thinking of order in the since that it implies something having to exist to have put it in order, but you see that is not how I think of the word. to me things the red blue orange yellow beads in front of me that are strewn on the floor are already in a order, I can give them a different order and I can give them an order that is one a-typical primarily to having been ordered by intelligent life.
No princess I think of the concept, using whatever word, as that which does not fragment or depend or dissolve or need anything outside itself.
I call the mind an ordering tool and your little romantic display shows just how this works.

Abstract wrote:
Completely missed when I defined replacement as being replacing the connotation? what I meant was why look at it as if something is bad instead of look at something to be concerned with but just the way shit happens to be. It is natural, meant to be, and thus good.
Princess....in what way is this anything but that?
Were you troubled by what was being said and the manner in which it was being said, so you projected this distress upon the source?

Sweetie, your emotional reactions to the concepts are none of my business...and only interesting from a social and psychological perspective.
I am describing, dear princess, how "shit just happens to be"...and the rest is the precious little princess emotionally unloading her anxieties and fears, hoping to forget that they came from her.

Abstract wrote:
You seem to be rushing to find ways to interpret what I say such as to fulfill your preconceived notions.
Now THAT, princes is what I call irony and a projection from weakness.
You would know it as simply projection.

Abstract wrote:
P That is part of your problem you presume I am doing that, or I guess being manipulative, when I am not, though I do give directing questions such as to get to what I see as being the issue or the root of the problem. And I do sometimes offer what I think, not to be preferred, but current as seeming to be logical, and if in a questioning form because I do not know for sure how to think of them and seek others thoughts in regards to it.
Endless questions...endless inquisitive statements meant to provide the illusion that she is detached when she is leading with her own inquisitiveness, and the manner in which she formulates her questions, with need.
Endless "what if?" scenarios to do away with reality and cast the imagination into the wind where all is possible because nothing is hindered by the world as it is.

"What if all were equal and nobody suffered?"
"What if up were down and down were up?"
"What if man were immortal?"
"What if Love were all?"
"What if there are dimensions where man is God?"

The world dismissed using hypotheticals that are totally detached from it.
Everything that troubles the princess done away with by evoking the unknown...the infinite possibilities of the yet to be.

Abstract wrote:
I have not said that I dismiss the past or choose to forget it or interpret it in agreeable ways. I interpret things as best I can as they seem to be, and in regards to the nature of them being what might irritate some and thus be called "bad" or "good" I simply don't give a shit... because I can enjoy thing contentedly being as they are, perhaps simply because I don't give a shit.
But you do give a shit princess.
Here you are defending your delusions trying to preserve your stupidity which offers you comfort.
Princess, I too enjoy life...everyday, and deeply. I daresay that I do so far more deeply and honestly than you, because I see it more completely whereas you, princess, prefer to twist it in ways which make it more palatable to your sensitive digestive tract.
You prefer dealing with "what if?" scenarios to "correct its directness.

I appreciate a flower and a sunset, more so BECAUSE, I know what it is...and not because I define it in ways to make it more agreeable to me.
You are a coward, princess, plain and simple. A quintessential liberal. See Kaczzynski for a more precise definition, for I have no time for your stupidity.

You prefer to not delve into what love is so as to enjoy it more, like a true woman watching a soap-opera. You just want to feel, without knowing.
You are dismayed by all these rational explanations as to what love is or why it evolved or how it functions because you just want to feel, like the princess that you are. Because you are a coward and you can't cope with reality unless it is selectively chewed and given to you with a kiss.

Know what I call your kind, princess, except for retarded?
Zombies.
The living dead...the brain-dead...the inebriated and those requiring chemical or some other form of artificial mediation to cope with the world and with others.

Abstract wrote:
It is hard to say what the buddha is considering the evolution of religions that occur throughout time, should one try to understand it as the Gautama himself understood it all or as people now think it should be understood.
Unlike you, woman, others and their experiences and their interpretations are of a secondary value to my own.
Life is all around me why would I place a mediating other in front?
Others can guide and offer their own assistance, but then they must be left behind or beside...you follow as you wish, princess.

This mythical Gutama reminds me more of Socrates or Jesus....nobody knows if he was a real person of if he actually said and did what it is claimed that he said and did, but he is used as a representation which "proves" that these ideas are earthly and not flights of fantasy totally disconnected from reality.
After all if Jesus or Guatama said and did this, and they were both human (one a god made into one) then it is possible, right?

It's like those infomercials depicting some rich Asian telling you that he knows how to make millions from the comfort of your home. He tells you what you want to hear; he makes it sound easy; he offers you a directive and a method; then he presents himself as living proof...through the intervention of a cleansing medium.
And millions fall prey.

Abstract wrote:
Its simple logic, reality is all that is
if illusion is all that is
then illusion is reality
but illusion is supposed to be the opposite of reality thus we have that the opposites don't exist, there is no illusion its not fake, everything just is, and it is real.
For a princess obsessed with semantics, as all women are, you throw about terms with the casualness of a child.
You comfort yourself with illusions I live in the real world. no matter how much it hurts.
I love it...I feel alive....i am alive and I feel it as need, as suffering.
I feel strong when this is decreased, knowing that my strength is waning, constantly. I appreciated more because it is waning.
I enjoy it more because I know it will be gone one day.

Now you, you stupid cunt, can do and say what you like, and you can call it whatever you like.

Abstract wrote:
The illusion I think that is typically meant to be talked about by most who say "everything is illusion' is that of the illusion that things are bad or good perhaps. when in reality those are compartmentalizations of human mentality. things may be harmful or helpful, but regardless there is no need to let the prospect of either irritate the personage and thus let the illusion of the negativity of either be relevant. Rather one should deal with the problem then let anxiety prevent full capacity of effort.
Princess, I will not call death good or immortality to comfort myself or to pretend that it is not what it is in relation to me.
It is negative in regards to me.
Negative and positive have been defined by me.

In short, because you aren't worth anything but scorn:
Negative: That which requires no effort to be....and that which is ubiquitous and contrary to life and consciousness.
Positive: That which requires constant effort, is rare or the exception to the rule, and which produces consciousness.

You can change the terms around to not cry about it.
I actually love it. It is as it is and as I want it to be.

Abstract wrote:
So you are saying that you are not beginning with the projected assumption that particular things are given? To do anything one must begin with an axiom, there is no starting truth, you just start and work shit out as you go.
No princess...I start with sensations.
You start with a unity, a Oneness, a whole.

I see no wholes but only momentary congruences, and so I do not assume that my mental models are wholes. I know that it is the only way my mind can make sense of the sensual input of congruent flows. I do not mistake my interpretations for reality, but I know that they are MY interpretations which are judges as either superior or inferior to another's.
I do not consider any one else's interpretations as divine, even if they call themselves Buddha or Jesus or God.

Abstract wrote:
The moment I use the word your eyes are clouded by your preconceived notions, you haven't even made an attempt to read what I say in a way that alludes to any ideas that you have not thought of.

See how a seemingly "humble" approach can hide a vastness of arrogance and egotism?

That you think you've provided anything which I have not considered, is how you convince yourself that you are worth tolerating.

My eyes roll, princess, when I hear the same old bullshit coming to me as if they were some New Age rapture.

Abstract wrote:
I am getting tired of discussing things with you myself because it seems all you do is ad hom instead of legitimately provide arguments to show that what I suggest is not plausible. That is a behavior I see many teenagers do. You do not know what I mean when I suggest not suffering. I am not implying anything about the pain not being there I am suggesting not giving a shit is about all I am suggesting.
This too was expected. The dislodging excuse which also saves face.

Princess, if I offered arguments for every retard coming to me with your imagining and what is possible, I would waste most of my time discussing ghosts and alien abductions and Big Foot.
What is possible is as infinite as the unknown.
I deal with what is plausible or more probable, given the world around me.

Yeah, it is possible that there is a Green Eyed monster in my closet, I choose not to discuss possibilities approaching the absurd and nonsensical.
I'm here to explore reality, not to explore the creativity of my imagination and come up with what might be or could be or should be or "what if?" this or that.
That not philosophy princess.
That's mind-farting or fantasy....delusion perhaps.

Abstract wrote:
wtf? you are pulling shit out of your ass as if it applies to me. I have not said or intended anything to do with God. What I was trying to get across to you again is the idea that things being ordered or disordered is but a matter of perception; it takes a mind to recognize a thing as being one or another. And thus that one thing is going from one state to another itself is an abstraction.
Why are you dismissing God, princess?
In the realm of possibilities, which you are an expert on, is not God possible?

Disordering is change, princess...you can call it whatever yo like.
You can call it order, it still stands as a negative, a challenge, in relation to my existence.
You can call ignorance a "higher" form of gnosis, still doesn't alter what it stands for in regards to reality.
You can call stupidity intelligence, still does not change what it is in reference to survival and reality.

You can twist dualism and call one what the other was called; you can change their names and metaphors, still does not alter what they designate and symbolize.
You can call death life and life death...still doesn't change what it entails in regards to you, princess.
But imagine...what if death were a gateway inot a higher form of life?

Abstract wrote:
Alright...
No what you did is I provided propositions... but because you are to much of an idiot to literate actual logical arguments against what I have said,(or actually read what I have said without filling in with your ideas of what I should mean) and despite the probability that you may actually have reasonable thoughts against them, you are incapable of doing such and thus resort to presuming that I am talking about things and implying things that I am not. Largely this is due I think to an over egotistical idea you have of thinking you are more intelligent then you actually are. When I can out right say that you are an idiot considering that it took you until you were 45 to still be in the particular crack of thought that you are stuck in. that at this point of age you probably won't get out of and will continue being in until death. but that is fine. And your not going to like this because you reserve a great deal of importance in regards to intelligence and intellect. And like wise in recognition by your self that you are an intelligent and intellectual person put a large amount of importance in your self. I'm sure you would not argue with that last bit. The only thing I would say is that such thinking can limit growth to a good deal because it provides a resistance to learning in that at certain times when you come across something that is logical but challenges what you have been thinking for a long time it thereby challenges your intelligence and due to resistance to admit that you are less grand then you like to think of ( because you think grandness has deeply to do with intelligence) your self you unintentionally and thus subconsciously refuse to accept a more logical proposition (not that I am saying I have provided any here).
Nice....
Now that you are done, let me say that you've provided nothing which threatens my positions but you hat to resort to "what if" scenarios or relied upon a total misinterpretation of my vies to post a reply which pretended to be more deep than it actually was.

If order and disorder are metaphors, princess, then what does it matter which one you use to express something detrimental to your existence?
Let's say that everything is the reverse of what I said...and?
If all is order then I exist as a disordering. I crave my own disordered existence.
Positive enough for ya baby?

Let's say entropy is decreasing and all is ordering or already in order...still the state of affairs is against my existence, and so I stand as a disordering in your fantastic world-view, which is a fantastically original "what if" scenario I never considered.
What if I am dreaming my own life, or I am God dreaming my life?

I don't know...what if?
How would it change things for me, a simple dream, a God's mind-fart?
I still care for my life as it is, whatever it is.
Will god waking up mean I vanish?
Then I stand in opposition to his wakefulness. It is a "negative" although it is His positive.


Discuss with the others your "what if" scenarios.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:38 pm

Didn't think you would respond...


Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Perhaps we agree then, need if it is, is but an aspect of life, because life is not needed nothing is ultimately, only needed in the sense you seem to be using the word that being that it is something one requires to achieve the things they want, be those things chosen desires or not.
you continue to construct false dichotomies...as in life is other than need, like self, or essence, or spirit, is other than appearance.
I can only conclude that the problem is both intellectual and psychological as both are part of one of the same mental disposition.
quit trying to name what I am doing and prove it wrong. My point is that there is a difference of course you think it is a false dichotomy if you disagree that would be obvious.

Satyr wrote:

Self-consciousness follows the emergence of consciousness, and consciousness follows the emergence of life...I wonder why you cannot connect your emerging self-consciousness to your automatic life responses, as you grasp life with every moment and then claim that you do not need it, contradicting your own automated life affirming mechanisms with an intellectual fart trying to preserve the notion that you are other than your body.
Perhaps the problem here is that you don't see that the reason I am still around is because there are things I desire to do. Nonetheless I do not care if I die because I do not feel the need to live, Because of particular things I do truly desire though I then "need" certain things to attain them...part of that being remaining alive until those things are accomplished.

You might think I would be dead if I did not feel the need to live or if I got rid of my desires and I had thus no need to live.. However having no need or desire to live does not imply having a desire or need to die. If I had nothing I wanted to do I would keep on living because I had no reason or desire to change what ever I happen to be doing, in other words I would just do shit.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
It seems to me that it would be fair to define the Flux and the absolute as the perfect and as the one. In fact any mystical ideas probably derive from attempts to categorize this Tao.
you can define shit as edible bio-matter, for all I care.
Words come so easy...particularly to those desperate to hide their nature and existence behind a vale of shadows and myths and comforting bullshit.
Why are you so conflictory? What does it achieve for you? Are you trying to hide any possibility of your ego being damaged?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
No you misunderstand me, it is one thing to consider another to care... I was using the word care along with its more Latin sense that being that Caro means to have anxiety regarding something. My point was that there is no need to think it is negative. if it is the way things are then it is not negative, except in the sense as negative 1 is to positive 2. but there is no need to be concerned with the human abstraction of the idea of negativity that being along the idea of "badness" or non-contenting...and what not...
Anxiety is perfectly correct, my princess.
Fear you can call it.
If not knowing or your death does not fill you with anxiety then you must be a rare breed of princess.
The self-deluding kind, which tends towards social myths to preserve the lie that they are "enlightened" or courageous or that they've overcome. then again inebriation is known to create this sense of carefree carelessness....and religion is always the opiate of the masses.
Glad to find one more representative of the banal, boring, mediocrities out there.
For a moment I thought you were not...oh well.
This is where perhaps you are loosing yourself in words you use carelessness here and think of it as being a bad thing because you think it means not considering things that will prevent you from achieving you goals. However I do not mean that, rather I mean to imply one need to get over the fear wherein it prevents them from achieving a goal. And in the case of where it helps achieve a goal then one revels in it because it is not something bad.

If not having anxiety about my death makes me a princess then I am fucking Princess Di


But let me ask you one thing satyr, regardless of whether I believe this is best personally or not.(I see logical issues with it)

But what more to life is there but being content?
If there is nothing more then why does it matter if someone falls into illusion to be content?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
In other words why look at it as anything other then an interesting, intriguing, perhaps beautiful aspect of nature.
I don't but you seem to think that doing so eliminates what they imply.
when did I ever say that? Or rather what horrible aspect of your ability to interpret people led you to believe I thought that way?

Satyr wrote:
I guess using tender, kind words is your way of dismissing what you know is there and is coming...so as to appear, to yourself, as objective and brave, when you can't help but be a a coward immersed in subjectivity.

It's a wonderment to me....
Your reaction to the words I was using, although not intended to cause emotional stress, and your addiction to using less "negative", more Hollywood words, so the kids do not get distressed, tells me that you haven't overcome your own nature.
Shall I soften the verbiage to not cause pain....and to fall into the popular bullshit which must twist reality into a positive?

Reality is NOT positive, princess. At least not in regards to life, where the concepts of positive and negative even dare to make sense.
Life is a struggle....suffering, constant stress...of varying degrees...uncertainty, ignorance etc.
It's this that makes it precious and valuable and noble.
As I said I don't care personally about the word usage but I recognize that the majority of society does, and thus as a survival mechanism I got you beat. Because I practice even now for those more sociable conversations and finding ways to relate these ideas to people in ways that are not met with resistance simply because negatively conotated words are used. My interest in challenging your word usage is largely to find out what sort of state of content you are in.


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I often find that people like to label people with words such as "liberal" to find a way of dismissing particular ideas with out actually having to argue them. I never said that I thought the exchange was equal, I was literally asking you a question, you again are misreading what i do as if a question of mine is rhetorical or something.
Your questions are leading, princess, and that you ask certain noes when I've answered them or that you ask them in a way that exposes your inability to follow, is what is tiresome.
You are a liberal little pr9ncess, no matter what you call yourself.

You want reality to be chewed up for you...given to you like a mother offers food, with ease and comfort and without any of the bloodshed and sweat.
If I ask a leading question it is so that you will see a simple truth that you have grown up to think is idiotic due to the entropic corruption you have met throughout your life.

Every question is leading.
There are some who are aware of such and make use of it.
However that was not meant to be a leading question, it was so that we could look into what might possibly be something commonly overlooked in regards to the ideas of sharing so that we could then truly evaluate if there was a necessary outlook with regards to it all as being a matter of working against or rather a matter of compulsory mutualism... but that went over your head. As I am sure this does now, and you will find in what ways it is simplistic instead of providing "logical charity" and considering in what ways a thing could work or be understandable.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Perhaps I should ask more clearly.
Perhaps you should think more clearly...but this is more a genetic limit than anythnig lese.
Your last questions pointed to a total misunderstanding of everything I've said.
Now I can think you are doing this deliberately, or I can think you are a moron....so which is it?
If I am misunderstanding what you are saying surely it is not a matter of your incapability of using means to communicate... it is always completely the other persons fault. Don't worry satyr your ego is secure, I am a child, I am young, and yet here I am.

Satyr wrote:

How many fuckin' times have I said life IS....IS, you moron, need.
Then you follow up with "I don't need life".
Fuck princess, and here you are contradicting this fact because you wish to retain your innocence and the sense that you do not need anything.
Princess, you need oxygen and food and companionship etc...all of which are sensations of your particular form of existence...your life.
All of them point to an absence in you...which you seek elsewhere, outside of you: in the other.
This is a classic problem I would think of us sharing different meanings of need and there not being made an attempt to clarify such but with obscure means rather then explicit ones.

Satyr wrote:

Now, whether a princess like you can accept this as a need, or if it wishes to call it a dick or a feather or a color or call it godliness, does not matter.
You seek outside yourself....and you might call this an illusion but this is why you are a delicate princess, wanting more to be comforted than to see herself as what she is.
Call it perfection, for all I care...call your dependence independence...what the fuck does it matter what a retard calls it, it does not change a thing?
A fat woman can call her fat slender, or an ugly man call his ugliness beauty, what the hell do I care, princess?
a hungry man can call his hunger fullness, and, does it change a thing about its nature; does the word matter?
When one actually does what you are saying instead of being a hypocrite such as your self... and actually looks into the self and sees what there issues are and why they are not obtaining there desires and what not then perhaps you will begin to understand where I am, and why your attempts to fuck with my ego are very childish and a waste of your energy. in my mind.

The funny thing is that at this point we have taken to insulting each other as a result of your unwillingness to continue in the form of argument that we were in. due to your lack there of. You say you do not have time to deal with me... I say you are to weak to be able to easily deal with me and provide logical arguments as such in a short amount of time that is easy. So you resort to the base forms just as a child does, instead of wading through only to make yourself stronger by practice.

I reciprocate for various reasons I won't mention, thinking of how any of the few logical concerns I might propose herein will go only to the wind because your ego will prevent you from holding any weight to what I say.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
If one were to steel from others, and others were to steel from that one, in what way would that be different from sharing, and would it necessarily be bad or of a nature for which such a state should be avoided?
In no way.
If you kill a lamb to eat it...and part it eventually winds up in the soil from where new grass will grow for new lambs to eat and new wolves to feast on these lambs, what changes?
Whether you are coerced or seduced into giving and in evaluating what you receive as a good trade off, what does it matter to anyone but you?

If you find pleasure in a friend's company and he finds whatever he does in yours, there is an exchange....and it is never equal. Ergo, princess, all friendships are characterized by competition and conflict and some hatred.
I know a princes, like you, might be hurt by this, by its callousness and cruelty, but who the fuck cares about what you feel, except you?
Of course no instance is equal, that is my point then by saying steeling one person gets more, but then later another gets more back in a different instance in the end you can add it all up and maybe the average tended to one person or another, but I agree. How does that matter at all, nothing is perfect in the typical sense of the word.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
No I could care less personally it doesn't bother me I can speak in the darkest metaphor and be fine, rather I think some of what is being discussed is profound but that speaking of it in negatively connotated forms pushes particular mindsets away from seeing these things in there natural resistance to the negative seeming. And personally regardless of whether that is ignorant or not I would like ignorant people to be educated so that I don't have to suffer a bunch of Christians trying to take over the world because their god told them to do it.
Your persistent usage of negative/positive, that emotionally base duality, tells me that you are a christian mind.
WTF? how the fuck do you get that after I just sarcastically stated the ignorance of Christians?

Satyr wrote:

There is no such thing as positive and negative outside human interests.
We are discussing human interests.

Satyr wrote:

The current social and cultural atmosphere is full of constant "positivity" All is made loving, innocuous...all turns out well, the loser wins, all find love, the weak become strong, the loser is victor.
Fuck you and your Jude-Christian bullshit.
never said anything like that you trying to interpolate based on what I said but you do not realize that I am of the sort of mind that chooses their words very carefully. And thus my meaning aren't going to be the same that you can grasp from you average Joe, as perhaps you are used to. I would think that the idea of positivity and negativity is a false dichotomy. shit just is, and you can call it what you want. I would thus say there is no more reason to let it get you down then there is to let it get you up, other then if you happen to like it one of those ways more then another I guess.

Satyr wrote:

I return the discussion to balance when it has diverted towards the infantile and the romantic idealism of liberal dimwits, like you, princess.
I'm not going to call shit feces, so that your delicate sensitivities are not offended. I'm going to call it SHIT!!! because for far too long female dispositions, like yours, have been comforted with tender words and soft metaphors.

Shall I call death a "gateway to a better world" so as to adhere to your positivity, princess?
Maybe I can call exploitation, a delicate misunderstanding requiring re-balancing, so that you are not bothered by bad dreams tonight?

What shall I call order in regard to entropy?
Let's see...how about flowers? No....that's too prissy...how about enlightenment.

So life is not fragmenting into death but it is being "enlightened" towards it.
You are not stupid and simple but you are intellectually troubled and challenged.
See what I said above about word usage. Beyond that I would say that I challenge your use of entropy only because the particular ways you seem to use it implies definitions that do not seem logical to me, that is different.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
If sharing is never equal then one need only find a way to have someone share back so that they unfairly get more in return. thus balancing the previous exchange with an opposing other exchange.
Yes of course my liberal princess, because equity is absolutely possible and it is desirable...as no man should seek an advantage over another but give unto others of his extra robe.
I swear you must really be having fun acting like an idiot and entirely misinterpreting what I said. What I basically said there is that what you do if some one over uses you is that you manipulate them into a situation in which they "give" you something more in return... how the fuck did you pull flowers out of that sort of shit stained hat? Oh that's right your caught up in your self-conceived notions... cheers

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
So you are thinking of order in the since that it implies something having to exist to have put it in order, but you see that is not how I think of the word. to me things the red blue orange yellow beads in front of me that are strewn on the floor are already in a order, I can give them a different order and I can give them an order that is one a-typical primarily to having been ordered by intelligent life.
No princes I think of the concept, using whatever word, as that which does not fragment or depend or dissolve or need anything outside itself.
there is no such thing. everything is constantly relying on something exterior to aid the maintenance of that system. To say otherwise defies the laws of conservation of energy, you cannot have a functioning system or a system held in a state unless that state held is one in which everything is in absolute-zero state wherein there is no energy required to maintain it. If there is then that energy must be obtained from sources exterior.

Satyr wrote:

I call the mind an ordering tool and your little romantic display shows just how this works.
the mind is an ordering tool but that doesn't change how things are sequenced regardless of something having decided they were. Minds either change order, or decide upon a description of the particular order that is already there.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Completely missed when I defined replacement as being replacing the connotation? what I meant was why look at it as if something is bad instead of look at something to be concerned with but just the way shit happens to be. It is natural, meant to be, and thus good.
Princess....in what what is this anything but that?
Were you troubled by what was being said and the manner in which it was being said, so you projected this distress upon the source?

Sweetie, your emotional reactions to the concepts are none of my business...and only interesting from a social and psychological perspective.

I am describing, dear princess, how "shit just happens to be"...and the rest is the precious little princess emotionally unloading her anxieties and fears, hoping to forget that they came from her.
How the fuck did you think I got emotional when we are using text and there is no means of expressing intonation and such?

You still didn't answer the question:

Why look at something as "bad"?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I have not said that I dismiss the past or choose to forget it or interpret it in agreeable ways. I interpret things as best I can as they seem to be, and in regards to the nature of them being what might irritate some and thus be called "bad" or "good" I simply don't give a shit... because I can enjoy thing contentedly being as they are, perhaps simply because I don't give a shit.
But you do give a shit princess.
I guess you can read minds then satyr.

Satyr wrote:

Here you are defending your delusions trying to preserve your stupidity which offers you comfort.
Princes, I too enjoy life...everyday, and deeply...more deeply than you. Because I see it more completely whereas you, princes, prefer to twist it in ways which make it more palatable to your sensitive digestive tract.
No you misinterpret me again, the only reason I am starting to talk in an irritated manner and approaching insulting you is because I have finally gotten tired of studying you, I have realized that you are an uninteresting idiot, though intelligent enough to be useful, and thus don't care any more about approaching you in a manner which is useful for getting information out of you, or having you listen to what I say. Because you are at a point where if I have anything to say it is evident that it is necessary for you to, and you probably can, figure it out on your own, if ever it was relevant to bother informing you of anything other then so as to then be able to have you help me attain particular other interests. Which you have proven to not likely be useful for. (perhaps this is an ill representation of how I think of it, my narrative, but it seems maybe it will help you understand where we are standing.)

Satyr wrote:

I appreciate a flower and a sunset, more so BECAUSE, I know what it is...and not because I define it in ways to make it more agreeable to me.
You are a coward, princess, plain and simple...a quintessential liberal. See Kaczzynski for a more precise definition, for I have no time for your stupidity.
What evidence did I provide to lead you to the deduction that I change definitions or perceptions of things merely to make things agreeable, rather I understand what things are and I see that there is no need to particularly look at them one way or another though being able to see them all ways aids in understanding the self but most of all being able to understand and work with other people well. In other words it is useful to be able to speak many mental languages, rather then being such as you addicted to only one. I imagine that will change.

Satyr wrote:

You prefer to not delve into what love is so as to enjoy it more, like a true woman watching a soap-opera. you just want to feel, without knowing.
What are you pulling out of your ass now? I have defined love so many times, or at least made attempts at it...

Satyr wrote:

You are dismayed by all these rational explanations as to what love is or why it evolved or how it functions because you just want to feel, like the princess that you are. Because you are a coward and you can't cope with reality unless it is selectively chewed and given to you with a kiss.

Know what I call your kind, princess, except for retarded?
Zombies.
The living dead...the brain-dead...the inebriated and those requiring chemical or some other form of artificial mediation to cope with the world and with others.
You are not an entertaining child to have a discussion with.
Scratch that, you are actually an interesting child, but I am bored for now.


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Its simple logic, reality is all that is
if illusion is all that is
then illusion is reality
but illusion is supposed to be the opposite of reality thus we have that the opposites don't exist, there is no illusion its not fake, everything just is, and it is real.
For a princess obsessed with semantics, as all women are, you throw about terms with the casualness of a child.
You comfort yourself with illusions I live in the real world. no matter how much it hurts.
I love it...I feel alive....i am alive and I feel it as need, as suffering.
I feel strong when this is decreased, knowing that my strength is waning, constantly.

Now you, you stupid cunt, can do and say what you like, and you can call it whatever you like.
You must be really confused sense your resulting to such base non explanatory ad homs...
it is funny how one minute you claim I believe that things are all illusion and now you start talking about how I think I live in the real world as if you knew it all along...

I guess it really does hurt your ego to admit that you are not as apt at holding discussion as another.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

The illusion I think that is typically meant to be talked about by most who say "everything is illusion' is that of the illusion that things are bad or good perhaps. when in reality those are compartmentalizations of human mentality. things may be harmful or helpful, but regardless there is no need to let the prospect of either irritate the personage and thus let the illusion of the negativity of either be relevant. Rather one should deal with the problem then let anxiety prevent full capacity of effort.
Princess, I will not call death good or immortality to comfort myself or to pretend that it is not what it is in relation to me.
It is negative in regards to me.
Negative and positive have been defined by me.

In short, because you aren't worth anything but scorn:
Negative: That which requires no effort to be....and that which is ubiquitous and contrary to life and consciousness.
Positive: That which requires constant effort, is rare or the exception to the rule, and which produces consciousness.

You can change the terms around to not cry about it.
I actually love it. It is as it is and as I want it to be.
that is what is so funny satyr, I have basically been agreeing with you that everything is lovable exactly how it is, but you are not understanding what I say because of your notions of who I am and thus what I "should" be saying.

ditto, regardless of the nature of reailty positive or negative what ever you want to call it: "I actually love it. It is as it is and as I want it to be."

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
So you are saying that you are not beginning with the projected assumption that particular things are given? To do anything one must begin with an axiom, there is no starting truth, you just start and work shit out as you go.
No princess...I start with sensations.
You start with a unity, a Oneness, a whole.
What makes you think I start with a oneness, anything I have talked about that comes from my recognition that things are connected, but then that is really obvious, it is not the recognition but the recognition to a degree that allows broad application such as to interpret particular things due to there obvious connectivity and necessary connectivity and such...I'm not going to get into that...

Satyr wrote:

I see no wholes but only momentary congruences, and so i do not assume that my mental models are wholes. I know that it is the only way my mind can make sense of the sensual input of congruent flows. I do not mistake my interpretations for reality, but I know that they are MY interpretations which are judges as either superior or inferior to another's.
I do not consider any one else's interpretations as divine, even if they call themselves Buddha or Jesus or God.
That is good it would be silly to think that something is valuable only because of the name of the being or the simple reputation alone. Likewise I think I pointed out before that I am not one to hold anything as real or should I say absolute or true for that matter, myself. (yet you try interpreting me as if I am a definite unchanging person...)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
The moment I use the word your eyes are clouded by your preconceived notions, you haven't even made an attempt to read what I say in a way that alludes to any ideas that you have not thought of.

See how a seemingly "humble" approach can hide a vastness of arrogance and egotism?

That you think you've provided anything which I have not considered, is how you convince yourself that you are worth tolerating.

My eyes roll, princess, when I hear the same old bullshit coming to me as if they were some New Age rapture.
I imagine you think such is impossible, it is interesting what that alludes to regarding your own character.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I am getting tired of discussing things with you myself because it seems all you do is ad hom instead of legitimately provide arguments to show that what I suggest is not plausible. That is a behavior I see many teenagers do. You do not know what I mean when I suggest not suffering. I am not implying anything about the pain not being there I am suggesting not giving a shit is about all I am suggesting.
This too was expected. The dislodging excuse which also saves face.
THis was expected by me the attempt to find a way to believe that something someone says is bullshit or some save rather then an accurate representation of their thoughts.



Satyr wrote:

Disordering is change
Why didn't you say that earlier, that drastically changes how I would have interpreted what you were saying. I guess it was because you presumed I was stupid instead of trying to get across to me what you meant... or you simply don't care about communicating? And thus instead of looking for how I was misunderstanding you and defining our misunderstanding you simply attacked my intelligence...because I guess you get off on doing that. or at least it prevent you from getting hurt. Because what you do is while you try to accept reality for what it is, you end up doing so but avoiding the aspects of reality that you don't like rather then facing and dealing with them.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Alright...
No what you did is I provided propositions... but because you are to much of an idiot to literate actual logical arguments against what I have said,(or actually read what I have said without filling in with your ideas of what I should mean) and despite the probability that you may actually have reasonable thoughts against them, you are incapable of doing such and thus resort to presuming that I am talking about things and implying things that I am not. Largely this is due I think to an over egotistical idea you have of thinking you are more intelligent then you actually are. When I can out right say that you are an idiot considering that it took you until you were 45 to still be in the particular crack of thought that you are stuck in. that at this point of age you probably won't get out of and will continue being in until death. but that is fine. And your not going to like this because you reserve a great deal of importance in regards to intelligence and intellect. And like wise in recognition by your self that you are an intelligent and intellectual person put a large amount of importance in your self. I'm sure you would not argue with that last bit. The only thing I would say is that such thinking can limit growth to a good deal because it provides a resistance to learning in that at certain times when you come across something that is logical but challenges what you have been thinking for a long time it thereby challenges your intelligence and due to resistance to admit that you are less grand then you like to think of ( because you think grandness has deeply to do with intelligence) your self you unintentionally and thus subconsciously refuse to accept a more logical proposition (not that I am saying I have provided any here).
Nice....
Now that you are done, let me say that you've provided nothing which threatens my positions but you hat to resort to "what if" scenarios or relied upon a total misinterpretation of my vies to post a reply which pretended to be more deep than it actually was.
Oh i see so you will admit that it was deep, but only "pretend" deep. I should go ahead and add that I held your mentality and used many of the same arguments you use now when I was 15... Not that anyone or you will believe that... because of course such is fucking impossible right?

Satyr wrote:

If order and disorder are metaphors, princess, then what does it matter which one you use to express something detrimental to your existence?
Let's say that everything is the reverse of what I said...and?
If all is order then I exist as a disordering. I crave my own disordered existence.
Positive enough for ya baby?
for me it has nothing to do with bit needing to be positive or negative, my concern about how you were using the concept of ordering involved the suggestion that without perception things were not in a sequence naturally. And either way that by order being a concept of mentality certain things, I think you would agree, such as the way my car looks is of a matter of order that is entirely irrelevant. An irrelevant to a degree that it almost disgusts me to see a "pretty" car rather then one that is purely functionally designed... (but apparently your definitions or associations of the word order are not what I originally thought, those definitions something I have been trying to get at by posing particular positions (whether I agree with or not) to see how you agree so as to derive by context what your meaning is... Perhaps I need to be more direct with you in the future though, as you are not very good at that form of conversation.

Satyr wrote:

Let's say entropy is decreasing and all is ordering or already in order...still the state of affairs is against my existence, and so I stand as a disordering in your fantastic world-view, which is a fantastically original "what if" scenario I never considered.
What if I am dreaming my own life, or I am God dreaming my life?
So your are saying that according to your perceived notion of what my world view is, my world view would not work because it does not work for you and as such that would mean that there was something, being you, that did not fit into the picture? Yes that is an argument against the particular view point you think I hold. A decent one I too would probably use.

Satyr wrote:

I don't know...what if?
How would it change things for me, a simple dream, a God's mind-fart?
I still care for my life as it is, whatever it is.
Will god waking up mean I vanish?
Then I stand in opposition to his wakefulness. It is a "negative" although it is His positive.
It is one thing to ask idiotic what if questions. It is another thing to ask "what if" general Wilhelm Keitel sends the border guard over to fuck with our encampment before we receive reinforcements. Should we move back a mile or two so that we can slow them down in the forest and have our scouts inform us to give us time to pick them off as they inter the marsh?

Satyr wrote:

Discuss with the others your "what if" scenarios.
Thus I will.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:47 pm

Abstract wrote:
TheJoker wrote:



And, what are these supposed "good" works you perceive humanity has accomplished? Laughing
Beer.

That's it?

In my opinion that was discovered on accident when it concerns sugars, starches, and yeast accidentally mixed together.

I suppose we might as well drink ourselves to death in a world that robs, rapes, and pillages itself to death.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:45 pm

TheJoker wrote:
Abstract wrote:
TheJoker wrote:



And, what are these supposed "good" works you perceive humanity has accomplished? Laughing
Beer.

That's it?

In my opinion that was discovered on accident when it concerns sugars, starches, and yeast accidentally mixed together.

I suppose we might as well drink ourselves to death in a world that robs, rapes, and pillages itself to death.
One could say everything is an accident. and no that is not all i was being...funny I guess.

A better list might be:
Internet
Language
Writing
Sitting on your ass doing nothing. (meditating)
Dancing
Kama Sutra
Silk Clothes and silk shit in general...
Partying
Cooked foods
Driving
Riding Horses for that matter, riding shit in general...
Farting contests
Comedy In general
Theatre
Drama In general
Music
...etc
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:56 pm

Abstract wrote:
Perhaps the problem here is that you don't see that the reason I am still around is because there are things I desire to do. Nonetheless I do not care if I die because I do not feel the need to live, Because of particular things I do truly desire though I then "need" certain things to attain them...part of that being remaining alive until those things are accomplished.
Once more you don't get the tautology.

Abstract wrote:
If not having anxiety about my death makes me a princess then I am fucking Princess Di
Yes still you care...and still you need as part of being alive.

Abstract wrote:
But what more to life is there but being content?
If there is nothing more then why does it matter if someone falls into illusion to be content?
This is a social question having to deal with mas delusion, sheltering and how numbness creates collusion.

Still, contentment is a negative sensation.
Life IS Need/Suffering...decrease it and you decrease the sensation of living.
Strength is a tolerance, a habituation with need/suffering (asceticism) so as to make the normal state of need more comfortable, or to raise the tolerance levels of the mind.

Abstract wrote:
As I said I don't care personally about the word usage but I recognize that the majority of society does, and thus as a survival mechanism I got you beat. Because I practice even now for those more sociable conversations and finding ways to relate these ideas to people in ways that are not met with resistance simply because negatively conotated words are used. My interest in challenging your word usage is largely to find out what sort of state of content you are in.
Mt motive is to see, not to fit into society.
Whatever fitness I have in regards to the environment, the human environment, is only in regards to my goal.
A cow also has me beat when it comes to fitting into the herd. Congratulations on that account.
I'm sure its a major source of pride for you.

Abstract wrote:
his is a classic problem I would think of us sharing different meanings of need and there not being made an attempt to clarify such but with obscure means rather then explicit ones.
Whatever you need to do is fine with me.

Abstract wrote:
Of course no instance is equal, that is my point then by saying steeling one person gets more, but then later another gets more back in a different instance in the end you can add it all up and maybe the average tended to one person or another, but I agree. How does that matter at all, nothing is perfect in the typical sense of the word.
You seek universal equilibrium as it is a replacement for your failed justice.
No, bad deeds do not always get punished, but only by a human system that requires internal order. Even in this case the justice is iniquitous.

Abstract wrote:
We are discussing human interests.
No I am discussing reality, in disregard to human interests...YOU are discussing human interests, namely your own.
Humanity is not all of reality, and human systems are actually attempts to "repair" or to "correct" the world.
You are a naive liberal idealist.
In its secular form it is called humanism or progressive.

Abstract wrote:
there is no such thing. everything is constantly relying on something exterior to aid the maintenance of that system. To say otherwise defies the laws of conservation of energy, you cannot have a functioning system or a system held in a state unless that state held is one in which everything is in absolute-zero state wherein there is no energy required to maintain it. If there is then that energy must be obtained from sources exterior.
Are you saying that scientific laws are divine laws/
Are they etched in stone, unquestionable, immutable, universal, absolute?

Energy is activity.
A system is a human construct.
Things interact. Patterns of repetitive predictability emerge, as part of these interactions; these too change.
Reality is fluid. All laws man devises to make it comprehensible are ephemeral and based on simplifying abstractions.

Abstract wrote:
the mind is an ordering tool but that doesn't change how things are sequenced regardless of something having decided they were. Minds either change order, or decide upon a description of the particular order that is already there.
No, the mind interprets reality, it does not create it. How accurately it does so determines the success or failures of its interactions within the environments and timescales of its ephemeral existence.
The mind perceives patterns in the chaos, yes, but these are not eternal.
In fact what it cannot find patterns within it interprets as darkness or void.
The rest is you misinterpreting the mind's abstractions for reality.
No doubt the mind experiences reality via its own abstractions, it lives within its own constructs, but these are constantly challenged by newer stimulations that require adjustments and re-evaluations and the stream of consciousness we call mind.

Abstract wrote:
You still didn't answer the question:

Why look at something as "bad"?
There is no such thing as bad.
This is your emotional reaction to what I am saying.

It may only be "bad" to you.
I choose to describe things in accordance to my perceptions.

Abstract wrote:
I guess you can read minds then satyr.
No, I can read actions, and since all is activity, then yes I determine intent and essence via the observation of actions.
In this case I can also read text which is supposedly a representation of mental abstractions, which are thoughts.
So, yes I can read minds by reading text. But thoughts are often misleading and hypocritical, in which case I also try, best I can, to read in between the lines of the text, having no access to body language and all other expressions of essence.

Abstract wrote:
No you misinterpret me again, the only reason I am starting to talk in an irritated manner and approaching insulting you is because I have finally gotten tired of studying you, I have realized that you are an uninteresting idiot, though intelligent enough to be useful, and thus don't care any more about approaching you in a manner which is useful for getting information out of you, or having you listen to what I say. Because you are at a point where if I have anything to say it is evident that it is necessary for you to, and you probably can, figure it out on your own, if ever it was relevant to bother informing you of anything other then so as to then be able to have you help me attain particular other interests. Which you have proven to not likely be useful for. (perhaps this is an ill representation of how I think of it, my narrative, but it seems maybe it will help you understand where we are standing.)
Although hurtful, I will recover.
Interestingly your disenchantment coincided with my first expression of impatience with you.
I've learned to expect such defensive actions, as I sometimes instigate the the cascading circumstances that will lead to being left alone.

I've learned not to be overly concerned with the needs and tactics of simple minds.
I'm too old to waste time. And since time is a measurement of change, activity, then I do not intend to waste activity.
Solitude can be a blessing.

Abstract wrote:
What evidence did I provide to lead you to the deduction that I change definitions or perceptions of things merely to make things agreeable, rather I understand what things are and I see that there is no need to particularly look at them one way or another though being able to see them all ways aids in understanding the self but most of all being able to understand and work with other people well. In other words it is useful to be able to speak many mental languages, rather then being such as you addicted to only one. I imagine that will change.
The addiction to the leveling perspectivism is to be understood as a reluctance to take a stand in the face of growing evidence.

All must be balanced when God is absent to lend a judicious hand.

Abstract wrote:
You are not an entertaining child to have a discussion with.
Scratch that, you are actually an interesting child, but I am bored for now.
This too was expected. Part of a pattern I've witnessed played out time and time again.
First an assault on my views, using secular Christian liberal views; a desire to equate all views as being of equal probability and a mere mater of perspective, with no superior and inferior judgment, then when I pull the trigger: first a declaration of superiority, a need to tell me that I am uninteresting or have ceased to be so, explaining the time already spent and then a pretense of detachment.

You entertain me, usually follows, when they cannot keep away, despite their declarations of boredom and disinterest.
Although the one who gets laid need not brag about it, no more then the one who is entertained needs to proclaim it.

Abstract wrote:
that is what is so funny satyr, I have basically been agreeing with you that everything is lovable exactly how it is, but you are not understanding what I say because of your notions of who I am and thus what I "should" be saying.

ditto, regardless of the nature of reailty positive or negative what ever you want to call it: "I actually love it. It is as it is and as I want it to be."
And yet it is negative towards life.

Recount all the states associated with the "negative".
Why do they require no effort, while the "positive" ones, and life, require constant effort?

If you are here to prove to yourself that you are happy or strong, rest assured that I am convinced.
There is nothing more contented than an animal put in a cage, fed regularly, watered regularly, protected from the elements and only expected to perform tricks for its master.
Still, I cannot box my mind within your simplistic parameters and call my contentment a universal one nor an eternal one.

Abstract wrote:
I imagine you think such is impossible, it is interesting what that alludes to regarding your own character.
My character is not dependent upon you or your ideals.
I value myself outside your liberal, eastern or not, standards.

Abstract wrote:
Why didn't you say that earlier, that drastically changes how I would have interpreted what you were saying. I guess it was because you presumed I was stupid instead of trying to get across to me what you meant... or you simply don't care about communicating? And thus instead of looking for how I was misunderstanding you and defining our misunderstanding you simply attacked my intelligence...because I guess you get off on doing that. or at least it prevent you from getting hurt. Because what you do is while you try to accept reality for what it is, you end up doing so but avoiding the aspects of reality that you don't like rather then facing and dealing with them.
Now you are backtracking.
Easily done for one who chooses anonymity and such methods to impose his Will, against one who has put his name and his thoughts out in public for years, and who has defended them consistently and, for the most part, successfully.

Abstract wrote:
Oh i see so you will admit that it was deep, but only "pretend" deep. I should go ahead and add that I held your mentality and used many of the same arguments you use now when I was 15... Not that anyone or you will believe that... because of course such is fucking impossible right?
What if, you are being honest, instead of stroking your ego?

When I was fifteen I was reading comic books, looking at girls, and playing with myself.
But girls usually mature faster than boys...and then they sort of flounder there.

Abstract wrote:
It is one thing to ask idiotic what if questions. It is another thing to ask "what if" general Wilhelm Keitel sends the border guard over to fuck with our encampment before we receive reinforcements. Should we move back a mile or two so that we can slow them down in the forest and have our scouts inform us to give us time to pick them off as they inter the marsh?
Imagination is a powerful tool...I would say a decisive one when it comes to survival and dominance, but it can also become detrimental and a tool that backfires when it fails to remain attached to the world and goes off into flights of fancy.
Then it becomes fantasy, which can be helpful, as it produces ideas that can be made real....or it becomes delusion, tunes solipsistic and results in the mind becoming ridiculous and pathetic.

Outside of the care, discipline, fear and forces upon the mind, I would say it can be a symptom of genetic weakness which albeit housing a strong intellect makes it void of substance and reference points. The latter is only feasible for a long term if it is fortunate enough to be born within a sheltering system which takes advantage of the intellect and uses the flakiness to keep it tame and harmless.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:11 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Perhaps the problem here is that you don't see that the reason I am still around is because there are things I desire to do. Nonetheless I do not care if I die because I do not feel the need to live, Because of particular things I do truly desire though I then "need" certain things to attain them...part of that being remaining alive until those things are accomplished.
Once more you don't get the tautology.
Once more you act like you know something and don't explain what the fuck you talking about.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
If not having anxiety about my death makes me a princess then I am fucking Princess Di
Yes still you care...and still you need as part of being alive.
I will avoid death so long as it serves the accomplishment of particular things I choose to accomplish... but fuck why am I even arguing this with you? It is obvious at this point that both of us will simply have to disagree about this stuff.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
But what more to life is there but being content?
If there is nothing more then why does it matter if someone falls into illusion to be content?
This is a social question having to deal with mas delusion, sheltering and how numbness creates collusion.
Again you talk about the nature of the statment or question rather then actually answering... because you can't think of a reasonable result...

So my question is why does it matter whether one believes bullshit and is happy or not?

Satyr wrote:

Still, contentment is a negative sensation.
Life IS Need/Suffering...decrease it and you decrease the sensation of living.
Strength is a tolerance, a habituation with need/suffering (asceticism) so as to make the normal state of need more comfortable, or to raise the tolerance levels of the mind.
How is contentment a negative sensation, does it hurt, is that what you mean?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
As I said I don't care personally about the word usage but I recognize that the majority of society does, and thus as a survival mechanism I got you beat. Because I practice even now for those more sociable conversations and finding ways to relate these ideas to people in ways that are not met with resistance simply because negatively conotated words are used. My interest in challenging your word usage is largely to find out what sort of state of content you are in.
Mt motive is to see, not to fit into society.
the best vantage point is from within. (well actually it is good to see from both interior and exterior vantage points... for the most wholistic picture.)

Satyr wrote:

Whatever fitness I have in regards to the environment, the human environment, is only in regards to my goal.
A cow also has me beat when it comes to fitting into the herd. Congratulations on that account.
I'm sure its a major source of pride for you.
Here it is not simply a matter of fitting in with the herd it is about being able to talk to the herd so you can sheperd it where it is deemed reasonable. Thus aiding ones survival by the use of and aid to the rest.

Satyr wrote:


Abstract wrote:
Of course no instance is equal, that is my point then by saying steeling one person gets more, but then later another gets more back in a different instance in the end you can add it all up and maybe the average tended to one person or another, but I agree. How does that matter at all, nothing is perfect in the typical sense of the word.
You seek universal equilibrium as it is a replacement for your failed justice.
I don't seek equilibrium i know that shit is allready as equalized as it is going to get.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
We are discussing human interests.
No I am discussing reality, in disregard to human interests...YOU are discussing human interests, namely your own.
Humanity is not all of reality, and human systems are actually attempts to "repair" or to "correct" the world.
You are a naive liberal idealist.
In its secular form it is called humanism or progressive.
Go ahead and think that. Clearly I was playing with words... you take me to seriously sometimes.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
there is no such thing. everything is constantly relying on something exterior to aid the maintenance of that system. To say otherwise defies the laws of conservation of energy, you cannot have a functioning system or a system held in a state unless that state held is one in which everything is in absolute-zero state wherein there is no energy required to maintain it. If there is then that energy must be obtained from sources exterior.
Are you saying that scientific laws are divine laws/
Are they etched in stone, unquestionable, immutable, universal, absolute?

Energy is activity.
A system is a human construct.
Things interact. Patterns of repetitive predictability emerge, as part of these interactions; these too change.
Reality is fluid. All laws man devises to make it comprehensible are ephemeral and based on simplifying abstractions.
Ok now you can go out there and start talking about ideas of the laws of physics changing and such, and mystical unprovable stuff like that, indeed that is plausible, but regardless what I suggested happens to apply to what you suggested: "No princes I think of the concept, using whatever word, as that which does not fragment or depend or dissolve or need anything outside itself" Ok so i take it then you meant the idea itself is something that does not dissolve... the idea of order... but that requires the presumption that life will always exist... But then in that sense it would seem you are right in general...regarding what I now think you meant... that order is a concept that is crucial to and ever lasting during and within thinking beings...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
the mind is an ordering tool but that doesn't change how things are sequenced regardless of something having decided they were. Minds either change order, or decide upon a description of the particular order that is already there.
No, the mind interprets reality, it does not create it.
I didn't say anything about it creating anything my friend. I simply said that it interprets the already ordered/sequenced reality as being ordered/harmounious.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
You still didn't answer the question:

Why look at something as "bad"?
There is no such thing as bad.
Indeed.

Satyr wrote:

This is your emotional reaction to what I am saying.
No it is not, If anything I am deeply enjoying this actually.

Now maybe we are beginning to understand each other a little better in regards to this.

The problem seems to be that you think everyone will or should interpret things in the manner you define them which is retarded, that's not a luxury had in reality. as above there are different meanings of ordered. I thought you might understand what I meant but you clearly didn't so I have to find different ways of saying it.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I guess you can read minds then satyr.
No, I can read actions, and since all is activity, then yes I determine intent and essence via the observation of actions.
In this case I can also read text which is supposedly a representation of mental abstractions, which are thoughts.
So, yes I can read minds by reading text. But thoughts are often misleading and hypocritical, in which case I also try, best I can, to read in between the lines of the text, having no access to body language and all other expressions of essence.
I agree with the acapacity to do this, and I would even go so far as to say that actually you are quite good at doing it, but you are not used to interpreting the nature of people that are of the same mental type/level if not beyond or perhaps slightly below you... because lets face it there are not many of us out there.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
No you misinterpret me again, the only reason I am starting to talk in an irritated manner and approaching insulting you is because I have finally gotten tired of studying you, I have realized that you are an uninteresting idiot, though intelligent enough to be useful, and thus don't care any more about approaching you in a manner which is useful for getting information out of you, or having you listen to what I say. Because you are at a point where if I have anything to say it is evident that it is necessary for you to, and you probably can, figure it out on your own, if ever it was relevant to bother informing you of anything other then so as to then be able to have you help me attain particular other interests. Which you have proven to not likely be useful for. (perhaps this is an ill representation of how I think of it, my narrative, but it seems maybe it will help you understand where we are standing.)
Although hurtful, I will recover.
Interestingly your disenchantment coincided with my first expression of impatience with you.
It was only meant to hurt you, it was not true.

Satyr wrote:

I've learned to expect such defensive actions, as I sometimes instigate the the cascading circumstances that will lead to being left alone.

I've learned not to be overly concerned with the needs and tactics of simple minds.
I'm too old to waste time. And since time is a measurement of change, activity, then I do not intend to waste activity.
Solitude can be a blessing.
Indeed solitude can be, it can also be a curse once you start to get tired of it. Which people do, even those really good at being solitary. Given time any state of being corrupts. (even buddha mind, or what have you....perhaps even the corrupted state corrupts.)

Satyr wrote:

The addiction to the leveling perspectivism is to be understood as a reluctance to take a stand in the face of growing evidence.

All must be balanced when God is absent to lend a judicious hand.
there are fair reasons to provide for doing such, but this is not one. (not a good reason for holding to only one means of communication.)

though maybe I misunderstand:
What do you mean by "reluctance to take a stand in the face of growing evidence."?
take a stand against what?

I would have thought you held to one way of speaking, one inter-dialect in not due to reluctance to stand but perhaps rather to stand out and make room for your form rather then cow toe to that of others that you think are bad forms of communication. (many of which i too might say are, that nonetheless one needs knowing of to be able to deal with and work with)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
You are not an entertaining child to have a discussion with.
Scratch that, you are actually an interesting child, but I am bored for now.
This too was expected. Part of a pattern I've witnessed played out time and time again.
First an assault on my views, using secular Christian liberal views;
Christian? Where do you get that. Explain? seriously, this interests me.

Satyr wrote:
a desire to equate all views as being of equal probability and a mere mater of perspective, with no superior and inferior judgment, then when I pull the trigger: first a declaration of superiority, a need to tell me that I am uninteresting or have ceased to be so, explaining the time already spent and then a pretense of detachment.

You entertain me, usually follows, when they cannot keep away, despite their declarations of boredom and disinterest.
Although the one who gets laid need not brag about it, no more then the one who is entertained needs to proclaim it.
Indeed, infact you are quite interesting, but I was honestly getting board at that moment, as it seemed a pattern of you misinterpreting me was evolving, but now things seem to be getting a bit interesting.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
that is what is so funny satyr, I have basically been agreeing with you that everything is lovable exactly how it is, but you are not understanding what I say because of your notions of who I am and thus what I "should" be saying.

ditto, regardless of the nature of reailty positive or negative what ever you want to call it: "I actually love it. It is as it is and as I want it to be."
And yet it is negative towards life.
What is and in what way are you using the word negative? do you mean to suggest bad, or simply negative in the sense of being the inverse of a particular idea? Regardless, as I think i already know based on your previous definition you provided as such if I remember correctly, but What is it that you mean is negative towards life, the view point we are holding? or what? How so?

Satyr wrote:

Recount all the states associated with the "negative".
Why do they require no effort, while the "positive" ones, and life, require constant effort?
Less effort, it still requires effort to blow a building up, in fact i t requires quite a bit to make the c4, it is just that negatives tend to involve the use of potential energy for the action rather then the positive that involve doing the work there I guess...


But yes it does seem they use less typically.

Satyr wrote:

If you are here to prove to yourself that you are happy or strong, rest assured that I am convinced.
There is nothing more contented than an animal put in a cage, fed regularly, watered regularly, protected from the elements and only expected to perform tricks for its master.
Still, I cannot box my mind within your simplistic parameters and call my contentment a universal one nor an eternal one.
I assure you I am less boxed then you are, less well fed, watered, and all that. For example I would wonder how you would fair during the heat of the nights without air conditioning...for example... though I imagine you might be of the sort as well that would do fine... Though I have neither called my contentment universal, nor eternal. Nor would I.


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I imagine you think such is impossible, it is interesting what that alludes to regarding your own character.
My character is not dependent upon you or your ideals.
never said that was the case, again you are pulling random concerns out of your ass.

And I think also you seem to be weighing too much on my little introduction I made when I first came here...


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Why didn't you say that earlier, that drastically changes how I would have interpreted what you were saying. I guess it was because you presumed I was stupid instead of trying to get across to me what you meant... or you simply don't care about communicating? And thus instead of looking for how I was misunderstanding you and defining our misunderstanding you simply attacked my intelligence...because I guess you get off on doing that. or at least it prevent you from getting hurt. Because what you do is while you try to accept reality for what it is, you end up doing so but avoiding the aspects of reality that you don't like rather then facing and dealing with them.
Now you are backtracking.
Easily done for one who chooses anonymity and such methods to impose his Will, against one who has put his name and his thoughts out in public for years, and who has defended them consistently and, for the most part, successfully.
Now you counter by trying to analyzing me rather then countering the concerns i raze themselves...interesting...
But let us look at this argument you presented: its not hard to counter because what you try to do here is present one single case wherein you have done something that apparently was hard for you to face. (interesting) But then I fail to see how that implies that you are not avoid-ant in other areas. there is nothing wrong with that though, because it is only natural that throughout one's entire life they spend that time finding ways they are doing this or that wrong or being avoidant of this or that for some reason subconscious or not...


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Oh i see so you will admit that it was deep, but only "pretend" deep. I should go ahead and add that I held your mentality and used many of the same arguments you use now when I was 15... Not that anyone or you will believe that... because of course such is fucking impossible right?
What if, you are being honest, instead of stroking your ego?

When I was fifteen I was reading comic books, looking at girls, and playing with myself.
But girls usually mature faster than boys...and then they sort of flounder there.
dogs mature faster then humans. The funny thing is it is a game of balance you can mature too fast and flounder out, you can mature too slow and never get to certain points. or you can be of the type that matures fast and doesn't flounder out. The funny thing is that in my youth i did things like you mention too Tv Comic books etc... but I had profound thoughts too...ones such as yours that informed my behavior in that adolescent age that yet I got over along with my other imaturities such as interest in fantasy. But that is all irrelevent anyways,...age... maturity.. temporal intelligence... i shouldn't have brought it up.



Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
It is one thing to ask idiotic what if questions. It is another thing to ask "what if" general Wilhelm Keitel sends the border guard over to fuck with our encampment before we receive reinforcements. Should we move back a mile or two so that we can slow them down in the forest and have our scouts inform us to give us time to pick them off as they inter the marsh?
Imagination is a powerful tool...I would say a decisive one when it comes to survival and dominance, but it can also become detrimental and a tool that backfires when it fails to remain attached to the world and goes off into flights of fancy.
Then it becomes fantasy, which can be helpful, as it produces ideas that can be made real....or it becomes delusion, tunes solipsistic and results in the mind becoming ridiculous and pathetic.
and you call the few flights of fancy I have given around you futile when we are on a forum that occupies about a dime of my life. Regardless the flights of fancy I have come in handy in many situations, vain conversation with vain people, but then it also stretches and excersises the mind. But i imagine that is a fantastical thought to you.


Satyr wrote:

Outside of the care, discipline, fear and forces upon the mind, I would say it can be a symptom of genetic weakness which albeit housing a strong intellect makes it void of substance and reference points. The latter is only feasible for a long term if it is fortunate enough to be born within a sheltering system which takes advantage of the intellect and uses the flakiness to keep it tame and harmless.
[u] Or if one is stuck in solitary confinement for a long time....just saying.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:37 pm

Abstract wrote:
Once more you act like you know something and don't explain what the fuck you talking about.
Existence is activity.

Life is a manifestation of existence which becomes conscious of this activity, or it perceives it.
It interprets it as need/suffering, as it is constantly in need of all that make it possible.
For life this absence is the absence of unity, completion, thingness, oneness: the absolute.

Abstract wrote:
I will avoid death so long as it serves the accomplishment of particular things I choose to accomplish... but fuck why am I even arguing this with you? It is obvious at this point that both of us will simply have to disagree about this stuff.
No "agreement to disagree".
That shit is for pussies.

You just don't get it.
It doesn't matter if you think you need life, as life IS what you are.
To need you must be alive, and to be alive is to need.
What you choose to do with your life, including giving it up, is predicated on you reaffirming life constantly, because on,y this gives you this option to Will an object/objective.

Abstract wrote:
Again you talk about the nature of the statment or question rather then actually answering... because you can't think of a reasonable result...
If you consider pleasure as your only goal, you are a hedonist. For you life ha only one goal and that is to feel pleasure.
I don't care to convince you otherwise.
If another wishes to dedicate his life to climbing trees, then that's his business.
I can judge him and psychoanalyze him according to this desire, but I do not seek to convert him to any other activity.
Because I don't care about him personally.

But, for me, pleasure is a negative sensation. It is produced when a need is satiated enough to fall beneath the mind's immediate concerns, its consciousness.
The need does not vanish, because to life is to need, but it falls beneath the mind's consciousness.

Abstract wrote:
So my question is why does it matter whether one believes bullshit and is happy or not?
It doesn't matter to me.
But it depends on the motive.
If the motive is to see and feel and know and understand reality as much as possible before one dies, then it does matter, as it contradicts this motive.
If the motive is not to be manipulated and exploited by more clever minds who sell illusions to the ones who, like you, simply wish to feel pleasure, then it matters.
If the motive is to be strong enough to endure reality, for whatever short time one can, so as to experience it more deeply instead of avoiding it, because another sheltered you and to whom you become dependent, making yourself more and more vulnerable to his demands, then it matters.

Comfort is like a drug.
Once addicted, it is the accumulated pains which have been avoided which must then be endured to be weened of of them.
Once addicted you will do anything to maintain the buzz. your dealer becomes your God.

Abstract wrote:
How is contentment a negative sensation, does it hurt, is that what you mean?
Read Schopenhauer and get back to me.
If not, then read my essay [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Abstract wrote:
the best vantage point is from within. (well actually it is good to see from both interior and exterior vantage points... for the most wholistic picture.)
One more example of your holistic Judeo-Christian liberalism.
There is no without, as outside existence is by definition non-existence.
This is why I say I am a bottom>up thinker.

Abstract wrote:
Go ahead and think that. Clearly I was playing with words... you take me to seriously sometimes.
You are so feminine, in so many ways.

Abstract wrote:
Now maybe we are beginning to understand each other a little better in regards to this.

The problem seems to be that you think everyone will or should interpret things in the manner you define them which is retarded, that's not a luxury had in reality. as above there are different meanings of ordered. I thought you might understand what I meant but you clearly didn't so I have to find different ways of saying it.
Clearly you have no clue why I am pissed.

Did I not say absolutes are human constructs?
Did I not say the mind thinks using binary logic, creating such concepts as good/bad, One/Zero and....now look carefully....NEGATIVE!!!!!/POSITIVE!!!!!?
Did I not say this?

Now, these concepts are not without merit, as they describe a reality in a manner which makes it comprehensible for man.
So what does man put under the heading Negative and what does he place under the heading Positive?

Negative: Cold, Death, Dark, Ignorance, Weakness, Disunity, Chaos....etc.
Positive: Warm, Life, Light, Gnosis, Strength, Unity, Order....etc.

Now in the first group what is the one common characteristic?
Answer that and you also ind the common characteristic in the second category.

So why is death "negative"?
It is not from a rational point of view, as it is what it is.
But from a human point of view it is because consciousness, in this case human consciousness, is a manifestation of life, and life needs, primarily to preserve and enhance this consciousness of itself.

Abstract wrote:
It was only meant to hurt you, it was not true.
No shit!
Still underestimating me, despite yourself.

Here's the thing though...is actually being threatened ans issue or is the motive of the other to hurt more relevant?
For example....a weakling threatens your life with a knife....he is harmless but he threatens you anyhow.
Now, does the fact that he is not capable of hurting you excuse his intent to hurt you?
His intent is clear....carrying it out has been evaluated as more or less possible, and does this make it forgivable?

Next step....perhaps the motive is not to hurt but to appear menacing enough to get noticed. So, now the intent is not rally to hurt but to be seen.
You are forgiven.

Abstract wrote:
Indeed solitude can be, it can also be a curse once you start to get tired of it. Which people do, even those really good at being solitary. Given time any state of being corrupts. (even buddha mind, or what have you....perhaps even the corrupted state corrupts.)
No absolutes, remember?
We are social creatures, we need some social interaction. How much of it we need and how often we need it determines how much solitude we require to remain sane.

Abstract wrote:
What do you mean by "reluctance to take a stand in the face of growing evidence."?
take a stand against what?
Take a stand against the current social and cultural mythologies.
It's one thing to pretend to so as to get along - to be a hypocrite and, yes, even a parasite, and an entirely different level of degradation to actually buy into the bullshit and convince yourself that it and your submission to it is "right" and "just" and "good".

Abstract wrote:
Christian? Where do you get that. Explain? seriously, this interests me.
Then read [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Sometimes we are infected with a meme and do not know it because we call it by another name. We might even be convinced that we stand against it when we parrot its principles and fall in line with its conventions.

Example: Marxists were in all respects Christians in all things but in name, yet they despised religion and Judeo-Christianity with passion while trying to build a secular version of it.

Abstract wrote:
dogs mature faster then humans. The funny thing is it is a game of balance you can mature too fast and flounder out, you can mature too slow and never get to certain points. or you can be of the type that matures fast and doesn't flounder out. The funny thing is that in my youth i did things like you mention too Tv Comic books etc... but I had profound thoughts too...ones such as yours that informed my behavior in that adolescent age that yet I got over along with my other imaturities such as interest in fantasy. But that is all irrelevent anyways,...age... maturity.. temporal intelligence... i shouldn't have brought it up.
Here's another bit:

Women mature faster yet fall behind in due time.
Why?

Let's see examples of some of the reasons why in nature.
Do mammals mature faster or slower than reptiles?

Now let us consider this:
Are more active, faster thinkers, more shallow and is their spontaneity due to their lack of contemplation, their ignorance?

Does knowing hinder action or does it promote it?

Why do more intelligent minds suffer more?
Why are they prone to madness?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:42 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Once more you act like you know something and don't explain what the fuck you talking about.
Existence is activity.

Life is a manifestation of existence which becomes conscious of this activity, or it perceives it.
It interprets it as need/suffering, as it is constantly in need of all that make it possible.
For life this absence is the absence of unity, completion, thingness, oneness: the absolute.
I don't see how that refutes what I had said: "... I am still around is because there are things I desire to do. Nonetheless I do not care if I die because I do not feel the need to live, Because of particular things I do truly desire though I then "need" certain things to attain them...part of that being remaining alive until those things are accomplished."

Perhaps you are saying that I desire what I desire as a result of my history...thus what i desire is predetermined... yet that does not change the fact that the only reason I am around is because I desire to be, and without that desire or by choice of not desiring life, I can reduce any need to zero.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I will avoid death so long as it serves the accomplishment of particular things I choose to accomplish... but fuck why am I even arguing this with you? It is obvious at this point that both of us will simply have to disagree about this stuff.
No "agreement to disagree".
That shit is for pussies.

You just don't get it.
It doesn't matter if you think you need life, as life IS what you are.
To need you must be alive, and to be alive is to need.
What you choose to do with your life, including giving it up, is predicated on you reaffirming life constantly, because on,y this gives you this option to Will an object/objective.
Being alive is need only in so far as being alive is followed by the desire to be alive and thus there follows the various needs involved in staying alive. regardless of whther my actions are predicted or determined, that does not change the fact that desire is the root of the boundless equation.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Again you talk about the nature of the statment or question rather then actually answering... because you can't think of a reasonable result...
If you consider pleasure as your only goal, you are a hedonist. For you life ha only one goal and that is to feel pleasure.
I don't care to convince you otherwise.
If another wishes to dedicate his life to climbing trees, then that's his business.
I can judge him and psychoanalyze him according to this desire, but I do not seek to convert him to any other activity.
Because I don't care about him personally.

But, for me, pleasure is a negative sensation. It is produced when a need is satiated enough to fall beneath the mind's immediate concerns, its consciousness.
The need does not vanish, because to life is to need, but it falls beneath the mind's consciousness.
What is the point in life if one does not benefit from it? (You can call the benefit of life pleasure or whatever... but it is that we seek to benefit is it not? so what is the primary benefit and how is it that we tell when we are being benfited but by recognition of a particular feeling that some may call pleasure some may call feeling content...some may call it whatever the fuck you might call it...)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
So my question is why does it matter whether one believes bullshit and is happy or not?
It doesn't matter to me.
But it depends on the motive.
If the motive is to see and feel and know and understand reality as much as possible before one dies, then it does matter, as it contradicts this motive.
If the motive is not to be manipulated and exploited by more clever minds who sell illusions to the ones who, like you, simply wish to feel pleasure, then it matters.
Yet we have aparticular motives because we see some benefit from achieveing or working at those particulars. if one benfits most from being blind, then what reason is there but to be blind?

Satyr wrote:

If the motive is to be strong enough to endure reality, for whatever short time one can, so as to experience it more deeply instead of avoiding it, because another sheltered you and to whom you become dependent, making yourself more and more vulnerable to his demands, then it matters.
This is more reasonable... I would argue that the reason a person does not want to be deluded is because knowing the "truth" or the "more accurate" better allows for benefit to that person for a longer duration of time thus overhauling the extent of total benefit experienced within a life time.

Yet wherein there is no additional benefit to be gained, there is no reason not to be blind.

Satyr wrote:

Comfort is like a drug.
Once addicted, it is the accumulated pains which have been avoided which must then be endured to be weened of of them.
Once addicted you will do anything to maintain the buzz. your dealer becomes your God.
eventually one finds comfort in not finding such comforts as that.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
How is contentment a negative sensation, does it hurt, is that what you mean?
Read Schopenhauer and get back to me.
If not, then read my essay Asceticism
so your saying you can summarize the idea? If you cannot then I guess I may read it eventually... if and when i have time... it depends on the length of it and whether i find it worth the time required to discover such a minute perspective. (not to say being minute means low-personal-effect on behavior/narrative...)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
the best vantage point is from within. (well actually it is good to see from both interior and exterior vantage points... for the most wholistic picture.)
One more example of your holistic Judeo-Christian liberalism.
There is no without, as outside existence is by definition non-existence.
This is why I say I am a bottom>up thinker.
Indeed there is no true without (there is also no true opposite because if two things are completely opposite they are the same in that they are both opposites of something...) that is beside the point though, satyr, it does not change the fact that it is just as well to be a sociable person and flow in that manner and see things from that perspective as it is to be a introverted interior person.

Though personally i would say it is best to be introverted and then extroverted....
I think of it as a circle and imagining drawing line to the center, these lines fill in the circle..this is the introvert discovering themself and thus the world, because by seeing the self one sees the world in that they are a compounding of the world tht surrounds them... but after a time the lines keep going and go outside of the circle... thus when the introvert (rare as they are as most try floundering in the extroverted state first) once the introvert fills in the inside the lines keep going out of the circle through the center point and out of the circle... and they become extroverted... I would say you are still a bit introverted... your havn't seen all thats in you yet... but who am I to know that? I have not met you anyways...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Go ahead and think that. Clearly I was playing with words... you take me to seriously sometimes.
You are so feminine, in so many ways.
That is because I am not one of those idiots that succumb to the social mimetic pressure that particular behaviors have to be defined as being feminine or masculine... rather I am a survivor and use what memes work in controlling and surviving in my environment. (like the male cuttle fish... the female chooses the sperm it gets and it always chooses the sperm of the males that shape shift/color mimic other females...)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Now maybe we are beginning to understand each other a little better in regards to this.

The problem seems to be that you think everyone will or should interpret things in the manner you define them which is retarded, that's not a luxury had in reality. as above there are different meanings of ordered. I thought you might understand what I meant but you clearly didn't so I have to find different ways of saying it.
Clearly you have no clue why I am pissed.

Did I not say absolutes are human constructs?
Did I not say the mind thinks using binary logic, creating such concepts as good/bad, One/Zero and....now look carefully....NEGATIVE!!!!!/POSITIVE!!!!!?
Did I not say this?
It doesn't matter that you said that it did not aid in the understanding of all you said, you were obviously wrong in thinking that alone was all that was necessary to complete clarify what you meant. I don't think the things you have mentioned aove have even been that musch of an issue in this argument, i have recognized all along that you thought that way. If I ask a question about that being the case or not it was only to remind you the way you think thus to show you that you are not making a particular connection. I would think...

Satyr wrote:
Now, these concepts are not without merit, as they describe a reality in a manner which makes it comprehensible for man.
So what does man put under the heading Negative and what does he place under the heading Positive?

Negative: Cold, Death, Dark, Ignorance, Weakness, Disunity, Chaos....etc.
Positive: Warm, Life, Light, Gnosis, Strength, Unity, Order....etc.

Now in the first group what is the one common characteristic?
Answer that and you also ind the common characteristic in the second category.
The problem with that is that all of those things can be considered negative or positive depending on the person, on average those are the way the catagories go... the commonality between them is that they are all things (the negative) that over time we have experienced negative results in dealing with... and thus it is by association that we have come to think of the m as negative or positive... when in reality we do not need to generalize but rather recognize that something is only "bad or good" or "negative or positive" or whatever you want to call it when it is occurent relative to a particular thing... for example to me a gun might only be negative when it is about to kill me, rather then all the time simply because it has the possibility of killing me...thus no things is negative or positive a thing is only negative or positive depending on the current situation...

Satyr wrote:

So why is death "negative"?
It is not from a rational point of view, as it is what it is.
But from a human point of view it is because consciousness, in this case human consciousness, is a manifestation of life, and life needs, primarily to preserve and enhance this consciousness of itself.
probably over time we developed negative associations to it because we recognized that we lost the use of particular individuals that where significant contributors to society... and over time we began to extend that negativity to the idea of death in general rather then in association merely to the loss, and thus began to fear death because we had an instinctual negative association to death (not because we were afraid of what was going to happen...because at that point there was no evidence to influence our thinking such as to lead us to think that death resulted in negativity.) though perhaps death became instinctively fear also because of the association of pain that typically occurs right before death...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
It was only meant to hurt you, it was not true.
No shit!
Still underestimating me, despite yourself.
I did estimate you, I clarified, given that there is no possible way for me or anybody to know exactly what anybody else is. One, if trying to estimate, will always be a little bit over or under the actuality. such is how interpolation goes...

Satyr wrote:

Here's the thing though...is actually being threatened ans issue or is the motive of the other to hurt more relevant?
For example....a weakling threatens your life with a knife....he is harmless but he threatens you anyhow.
Now, does the fact that he is not capable of hurting you excuse his intent to hurt you?
His intent is clear....carrying it out has been evaluated as more or less possible, and does this make it forgivable?

Next step....perhaps the motive is not to hurt but to appear menacing enough to get noticed. So, now the intent is not rally to hurt but to be seen.
You are forgiven.
really the intent is not simply to hurt but rather to entice a particular reaction deemed to result in particular things of interest such as your rebuttal, and the opportunity to say exactly this. Or to test you to see how you stand.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Indeed solitude can be, it can also be a curse once you start to get tired of it. Which people do, even those really good at being solitary. Given time any state of being corrupts. (even buddha mind, or what have you....perhaps even the corrupted state corrupts.)
No absolutes, remember?
if that is the case then there cannot absolutely be no absolutes thus we have that there are some and some then perhaps are those that are in the case i above mentioned. Unless one of the ones there are is the one that there are no absolutes...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
What do you mean by "reluctance to take a stand in the face of growing evidence."?
take a stand against what?
Take a stand against the current social and cultural mythologies.
It's one thing to pretend to so as to get along - to be a hypocrite and, yes, even a parasite, and an entirely different level of degradation to actually buy into the bullshit and convince yourself that it and your submission to it is "right" and "just" and "good".
Ok ...with that I can agree... one should hold to a particular formation of behavior in order to allow it to become normal...eventually... or at least aid in the growth of the acceptance of that behavior... If one stands it makes room for more to stand...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Christian? Where do you get that. Explain? seriously, this interests me.
Then read this.
Sometimes we are infected with a meme and do not know it because we call it by another name. We might even be convinced that we stand against it when we parrot its principles and fall in line with its conventions.
But here is the problem, what evidence do you have that any meme started with Christianity.. from what i have witnessed Christianity is for the most part just a conglomeration of other view, pagan and otherwise, from around and before the time of its engendering.

Either way how is being bored with a person have anything to do with Christianity?


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
dogs mature faster then humans. The funny thing is it is a game of balance you can mature too fast and flounder out, you can mature too slow and never get to certain points. or you can be of the type that matures fast and doesn't flounder out. The funny thing is that in my youth i did things like you mention too Tv Comic books etc... but I had profound thoughts too...ones such as yours that informed my behavior in that adolescent age that yet I got over along with my other imaturities such as interest in fantasy. But that is all irrelevent anyways,...age... maturity.. temporal intelligence... i shouldn't have brought it up.
Here's another bit:

Women mature faster yet fall behind in due time.
Why?

Let's see examples of some of the reasons why in nature.
Do mammals mature faster or slower than reptiles?

Now let us consider this:
Are more active, faster thinkers, more shallow and is their spontaneity due to their lack of contemplation, their ignorance?

Does knowing hinder action or does it promote it?

Why do more intelligent minds suffer more?
Why are they prone to madness?
its funny... i would propose the same argument if someone said what I said...

The end is that we cannot know whether way... I did not remark necessarily on the fact that I learned faster... but rather that I learned particular things at a particular age... learning those particular things at that age does not require a faster mind... yet that I did would indicate that I had more time to consider the next step resultant of those ideas..

whether knowing what I know has anything to do with intelligence is unknowable... i imagine it has a little to do with it... but to what degree is hard to say...
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:34 pm

Abstract wrote:

Satyr wrote:
Now, these concepts are not without merit, as they describe a reality in a manner which makes it comprehensible for man.
So what does man put under the heading Negative and what does he place under the heading Positive?

Negative: Cold, Death, Dark, Ignorance, Weakness, Disunity, Chaos....etc.
Positive: Warm, Life, Light, Gnosis, Strength, Unity, Order....etc.

Now in the first group what is the one common characteristic?
Answer that and you also ind the common characteristic in the second category.
The problem with that is that all of those things can be considered negative or positive depending on the person, on average those are the way the catagories go... the commonality between them is that they are all things (the negative) that over time we have experienced negative results in dealing with... and thus it is by association that we have come to think of the m as negative or positive... when in reality we do not need to generalize but rather recognize that something is only "bad or good" or "negative or positive" or whatever you want to call it when it is occurent relative to a particular thing... for example to me a gun might only be negative when it is about to kill me, rather then all the time simply because it has the possibility of killing me...thus no things is negative or positive a thing is only negative or positive depending on the current situation...

Ah-huh....Jeez stuck in your desire to equate everything into perspective.

The "negative" are the noes that require no effort to come about.
The positive requires effort, constant energy,...something being consumed, something being burned, destroyed and created, assimilated.

The negative is ubiquitous in relation to the positive which is rare.
If there were no imbalance there would be no arrow of time, no past or future....no need for consciousness.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:57 pm

Satyr wrote:
The negative is ubiquitous in relation to the positive which is rare.
If there were no imbalance there would be no arrow of time, no past or future....no need for consciousness.
Talking of imbalances reminded me once again of the cosmological problem of baryon asymmetry:

Quote :
The baryon asymmetry problem in physics refers to the apparent fact that there is an imbalance in baryonic matter and antibaryonic matter in the universe. Neither the standard model of particle physics, nor the theory of general relativity provide an obvious explanation for why this should be so; and it is a natural assumption that the universe be neutral with all conserved charges.[1] The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, as such, there should have been total cancellation of both. In other words, protons should have cancelled with antiprotons, electrons with antielectrons (positrons), neutrons with antineutrons, and so on for all elementary particles. This would have resulted in a sea of photons in the universe with no matter. Since this is evidently not the case, after the Big Bang, some physical laws must have acted differently for matter and antimatter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

If one included all the phenomena you referred to as being either positive or negative, they would together form a subset of matter, which in itself would dwarf the set of antimatter. Somehow, then, even negative phenomena such as cold, dark, chaos, disunity, death, etc..., would become members of a positive set, as even these conditions would be preferable and more favorable to life than a universe with no matter at all.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:38 pm

The hypocrisy of perspectivism, as some use it to level everything down to a grand hoax, is an old story.
It implies that all prescriptive are equal, simply because they are perspectives: a vantage point lacking a complete picture (omniscience).
They speculate that from a vantage point of a God, in this case a secular one, all would be equally ignorant and inferior, thusly making survival of the fittest a big farce.

Once your awareness has been taken out of the picture, due to sheltering, and its only function is to prove itself valuable to the maintenance of the communal myths, then all perspectives have the relevance of a child's game.

You see it in this insistence that "she does not need life". A position dependent on him affirming life constantly.
Only a self-consciousness emerging in a consciousness, emerging in a living organism constantly struggling to maintain itself can the nihilistic assertion be made, and death be a choice.
Before that point death or inanimate matter, is the norm. There is no choice about it.

A man can commit suicide only after he has reaffirmed living long enough to discover it as being inadequate, or too much trouble or worth sacrificing for an ideal.
The Buddhist monk contradicts himself when he denies life while clinging to it with every heartbeat.

The insinuation is what Pinker refers to as the "ghost in the machine", that the living organism is other than the life it is living; that the being is other than its actions...underlying it the usual Judeo-Christian shit about mind/body.

In this case the living organism can deny life, while he reaffirms it constantly or he can claim to be absent of need, while his entire becoming is a constant feeding, breathing, self-repairing, self-defending, activity.
In its mind it is other than its body. It can deny needing life while its body constantly contradicts him.

This paradox is created by the emergence of consciousness.
Consciousness is a part of the organic processes which we call an organism, just as the processes are part of the processes we call Flux, or existence....and just as self-consciousness is a portion of consciousness tuning upon itself and feeling other-than it.

Consciousness is a discriminating tool...it always separates itself from the otherness.
This is a form of schizophrenia, as the frena, the faculties, are in schisms.
This also creates the usual spiritual experiences concerning God's voice and ghosts and being possessed by spirits etc.

I would say that this is also a part of this ordering gin the disordering, as the organism seeks to maintain itself against the attrition of time, change, and then reverse the process to find godliness, or to become God or the absent absolute.
At this point we are talking about a rebellion against reality, as Camus would call it.

The organism wishes, even if it cannot fully conceptualize and define what this means, to "heal" reality, correct it....construct its ideal universe....exit it or engulf it in itself.
The masculine spirit.

This is the Will towards whatever form the projected object/objective takes.

Camus, Albert wrote:
By the treatment that the artist imposes on reality, he declares the intensity of his rejection. But what he retains of reality in the universe that he creates reveals the degree of consent that he gives to at least one part of reality–which he draws from the shadows of evolution to bring it to the light of creation.
In the final analysis, if the rejection is total, reality is then completely banished and the result is a purely formal work. If, on the other hand, the artist chooses, for reasons often unconnected with art, to exalt crude reality, the result is then realism.
In the first case the primitive creative impulse in which rebellion and consent, affirmation and negation are closely allied is adulterated to the advantage of rejection. It then represents formal escapism, of which our period has furnished so many examples and of which the nihilist origin is quite evident. In the second case the artist claims to give the world unity by withdrawing from it all privileged perspectives. In this sense, he confesses his need for unity, even a degraded form on unity.
But he also renounces the first requirement of artistic creation. To deny the relative freedom of the creative mind more forcibly, he affirms the immediate totality of the world. The act of creation denies itself in both these kinds of work. Originally, it refused only one aspect of reality while simultaneously affirming another.
Whether it comes to the point of rejecting all reality or of affirming nothing but reality, it denies itself each time either by absolute negation or by absolute affirmation. It can be seen that, on the plane of aesthetics, this analysis coincides with the analysis I have sketched on the historical plane. But just as there is no nihilism that does not end by supposing a value, and no materialism that, being self-conceived, does not end by contradicting itself, so formal art and realist art are absurd concepts. No art can completely reject reality. The Gorgon is, doubtless, a purely imaginary creature; its face and the serpents that crown it are part of nature. Formalism can succeed in purging itself more and more of real content, but there is always a limit. Even pure geometry, where abstract paining sometimes ends, still derives its color and its conformity to perspective from the exterior world.
The only real formalism is silence. Moreover, realism cannot dispense with a minimum of interpretation and arbitrariness. Even the very best photographs do not represent reality; they result from an act of selection and impose a limit on something that has none. The realist artist and the formal artist try to find unity where it does not exist, in reality in tis crudest state, or in imaginative creation which wants abolish all reality. On the contrary, unity in art appears at the limit of transformation that the artist imposes on reality. It cannot dispense with either.
This correction which the artist imposes by his language and by a redistribution of elements derived from reality is called style and gives the re-created universe its unity and its boundaries.
It attempts, in the work of every rebel, to impose its laws on the world, and succeeds in the case of a few geniuses.
”Poets,” said Shelley, “are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.”

Activity is always the product of an imbalance.
Air flows towards a vacuum or towards lower degrees of air pressure....water always follows the path of least resistance...all human activity, pro-creativity, is rooted in man's need or an absence in him.
He seeks in the otherness what he feels in himself as lacking (need).

Even the need to express one's self is a need to commune with an otherness.

This, so called "overflowing" is not some divine product, it is the accumulated energies, experiences, knowledge, strengths, whatever, of a man's entire lifetime.
We can think of procreation as an overflowing as the organism only reproduces when it has excess resources at its disposal, after its immediate needs have been met, or it has the capacity, the talent, the confidence, to replenish with relative ease what resources are overflowing from it, or what is overflowing is what it no longer requires in itself, having overcome it.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:18 pm

Satyr wrote:

Ah-huh....Jeez stuck in your desire to equate everything into perspective.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that it is silly to recognize the dynamics of relative value...? You really think that things are absolute and apply to all in the same way?

Satyr wrote:

The "negative" are the noes that require no effort to come about.

The positive requires effort, constant energy,...something being consumed, something being burned, destroyed and created, assimilated.

The negative is ubiquitous in relation to the positive which is rare.
If there were no imbalance there would be no arrow of time, no past or future....no need for consciousness.
As I have said, nothing requires no effort only more or less. You can define negative in what ever way you want but that does not change what I said above.

If there is to be balance to everything there must be balance to even balance, and such would seem like chaos...There are problems with the nature of that saying... but the point is that the "imbalance" as you call it that allows things to move... is the balance.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:43 pm

Satyr wrote:

The Buddhist monk contradicts himself when he denies life while clinging to it with every heartbeat.
seeing as you don't know many Buddhist monks you don't realize that many do not deny life...just saying.

Satyr wrote:
The insinuation is what Pinker refers to as the "ghost in the machine", that the living organism is other than the life it is living; that the being is other than its actions...underlying it the usual Judeo-Christian shit about mind/body.

In this case the living organism can deny life, while he reaffirms it constantly or he can claim to be absent of need, while his entire becoming is a constant feeding, breathing, self-repairing, self-defending, activity.
Again it seems you are unwilling to recognize what I mean when I say that one breaths and self-defends because they desire life for a reason. Yet one need not care that they are alive or dead, simply because they desire life. One can desire it in order to achieve particular things ,but not care if that attempt fails, in recognition that it doesn't matter ultimately, and that if the particular goal is not achieved the natural selectivity of nature continues and thus pleasingly one accepts what comes... But whatever...that sounds to mystical to you.. i would wager, even though it is actually rather logical... it is just using words that you have come to associate with particular to -you-negative ideas due to your conditioning or should I say programing...

It seems I have heard you say that having an ego is good, and I can see that at least to some extent that is good. Yet it seems you let your ego prevent you from considering things and rather fall into absolutist ideas of yourself being most likely to be correct at all times. As a result of your ego you are not as accepting of logical things and red-herring out of discussion because you don't won't to admit a plausible incapacity or failure as you would think of it. Thus we have that your egoism is being detrimental to yourself. Ironically you will not accept this for that vary reason.

It seems you did not address many of what I said in my previous post, you did not answer some of the questions. You are running.

Satyr wrote:

In its mind it is other than its body. It can deny needing life while its body constantly contradicts him.
I don't think i am other then my body. Rather I would ask you why you stop defining yourself at your skin rather then realizing the fact that who you are is determined by reality as it compounds on you and influences your every decision, as such to imply that what you are goes further then any human definition of limitation by simply the skin.


Satyr wrote:

Consciousness is a discriminating tool...it always separates itself from the otherness.
This is a form of schizophrenia, as the frena, the faculties, are in schisms.
Schizophrenia is only a person who has audio and visual hallucination accompanied by paranoid delusions. (according to the current American psychological definition of the word) but I know what you mean...


Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Against action.

Back to top Go down
 
Against action.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Action Rhymes for Kindergarten (printout)
» Annex "C" Period of Action On Procurement Activities
» Destruction of Damascus Draws Nigh: US General, 'We Are Preparing for Military Action
» Action Words for Bloom's Taxonomy
» The Eight of wands

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