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
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:19 pm

Abstract wrote:
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.
Like with many other religious dogmas they've been given clever ways to mask their nihilism and world-denouncing, self-hatred, behind semantics and feel-good doublespeak.

Abstract wrote:
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.
And here is more evidence of your Judeo-Christian mind.
you think life has a purpose, beyond its own perpetuation, and that it lies "outside" the mind which lives.

Only in the conscious mind is meaning or purpose possible. This is why I part ways with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche when they describe Will as a universal force which explains life.

Life explains the will, not the other way around.

It is life which, in an effort to find fulfillment, posits the dilemma of a missing meaning, purpose, and then strives to find it outside of itself....like a hungry beast.

Abstract wrote:
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...
I've come to realize that, in all due respect, you are far simpler than I originally thought.

An amoeba, or proto-life, knows of no "goals", except satisfying its needs.
The only reason you can even project goals for yourself, is because you have your basic needs satisfied. This sheltering, as I've noted, makes you seek for a reason to live, because you are bored and your leisure time frees mental energies to turn back on itself and wonder why it is living at all.

I've said this before, many times, that it is this increasing sheltering, comfort, immediate satisfaction of immediate needs, which creates the possibility for nihilism.

Abstract wrote:
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.
I've heard that ego is a sin....but

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.

Abstract wrote:
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.
That you've now resorted to the usual liberal ploy of reducing the body, the past, to the "skin", tells me that you are the simpleton liberal I originally diagnosed you as.

_________________
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 8:23 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
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.
Like with many other religious dogmas they've been given clever ways to mask their nihilism and world-denouncing, self-hatred, behind semantics and feel-good doublespeak.
The problem is that you are paying attention to what you think I mean by the words I use, and not trying to understand my narrative...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
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.
And here is more evidence of your Judeo-Christian mind.
you think life has a purpose, beyond its own perpetuation, and that it lies "outside" the mind which lives.
There you go pulling shit out of your ass again, I do not think life has a purpose or meaning I think that at the most one decides their own purpose. However I must question the nature of how reality effects and causes our choices and thus may effectively "give" us a purpose. That depends on one's ideas regarding determinism I guess.

Satyr wrote:

Only in the conscious mind is meaning or purpose possible. This is why I part ways with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche when they describe Will as a universal force which explains life.

Life explains the will, not the other way around.

It is life which, in an effort to find fulfillment, posits the dilemma of a missing meaning, purpose, and then strives to find it outside of itself....like a hungry beast.
Maybe this will help you understand me a little, though I wrote it in high school:

------------------------
Useless things…

Silence

With no ends to gain or beginnings past
We go on without having purpose
By thinking we do, or searching for it

Existence because that is what it is

Poems, songs, communication,
All there to achieve what?
Growth?
There is always greater
And so, all steps are forever less

We walk upon the sphere of life thinking it is flat,
Looking for the end.
We think we are growing closer,
Never to realize that we have already been here,
We go in circles

I am not so short sighted
I see around the lifecycle
And know that it is my backside
I see

To tread any further
Is useless
As are all things
Even knowing that they are
Even despair!

So I walk because I have nothing to do
“Why not?”
There is no reason not to,
As there is no reason to

Knowing this is the ultimate strength
Pain is of loss; loss of flesh, energy, mind, love
But what is there to loose?
There is no purpose,
No meaning to life.

We live seeking the answer
And there is not one
Yet, is that not an answer?

You are already in heaven
You must simply realize it
And to realize you are bound to no purpose
Is the ultimate freedom
Life becomes food for your feelings
You choose the flavor
Shit or maybe chocolate with almonds
Whatever you like
Or choose to like

But then, some people cannot realize the heaven they are in
Weather it is because they don’t understand
Or maybe don’t know any flavors they like
It is only lack of wisdom
And true understanding that can keep you from your heaven
Weather it be burning in hell
Or flying with angels
-----------------------------

Abstract wrote:
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...
I've come to realize that, in all due respect, you are far simpler than I originally thought. [/quote] Simply because something holds a thought that you do not understand, as i assure you you are not understanding what I mean as i can tell based on how you respond, does not mean that the being is simple. (rather you are responding as if you have particular preconceived ideas of what definitions or meanings I hold behind the way I say things...)

Satyr wrote:

An amoeba, or proto-life, knows of no "goals", except satisfying its needs.
The only reason you can even project goals for yourself, is because you have your basic needs satisfied. This sheltering, as I've noted, makes you seek for a reason to live, because you are bored and your leisure time frees mental energies to turn back on itself and wonder why it is living at all.
this shows that you clearly are assuming things of what I say based on your preconceived notion of my ideals, that you really have no understanding of. When I say I have a goal, I mean there is something I want to do, it is not one given or something... I want to do it... and there is no reason not to.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
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.
I've heard that ego is a sin....but
sin is used to describe a thing that is wrong in all cases... I don't believe in such absolutes.


Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.
Egoism can lead one to do noble things due to the desire to uphold an image. Yet having a lack of desire to uphold an image can make one quite powerful in respect to doing what is necessary regardless of what people think.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
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.
That you've now resorted to the usual liberal ploy of reducing the body, the past, to the "skin", tells me that you are the simpleton liberal I originally diagnosed you as.
I am not reducing it to the skin I am saying the skin as the limit that is to say that the body is all that is the skin and beneath including brain and more...you need to think more of what I say rather then make assumptions satyr. Plus I am saying that that is only the way some people think of it anyways. And revealing that it is plausible that what a person is is not some magical defined thing but rather only a part of the universe, just some focusing of energies, but really what is to say "it" stops here or there as truly the connections continue beyond any limit we would define. Instead of ad homing or using a red herring or whatever might you suggest an alternative to this thought. or other wise understand it and recognize... cause my point here is to have a discussion and suggest thoughts not claim that they have to be true, my goal being to learn..rather then try to fight about who's dick is bigger... that is childish. IMO
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:25 am

Abstract wrote:
The problem is that you are paying attention to what you think I mean by the words I use, and not trying to understand my narrative...
Your narrative insinuates things about you and your manner of speaking and becoming.
That you are unaware of it speaks to the "Know Thyself" part.

Maybe you should follow through with your own reasoning, though it might be adopted and reflecting a popular narrative, to understand what you are truly implying with all your "positivity".

Abstract wrote:
There you go pulling shit out of your ass again, I do not think life has a purpose or meaning I think that at the most one decides their own purpose. However I must question the nature of how reality effects and causes our choices and thus may effectively "give" us a purpose. That depends on one's ideas regarding determinism I guess.
Again, you seem to have a problem thinking beyond your "narrative" and this makes you tiresome.

You begin with this feel-good proposition that you do not actually need life, but only to accomplish certain goals, and then you refuse to see how this would apply to a life-form beneath your level, such as it is.
Here you are contradicting yourself with every heart-beat.
That it is automatic makes you feel "innocent" in regards to it.

The first motive of the organism, whether it is aware of it or not, is self-preservation. All other "motives" stem from this.
You NEED oxygen, you NEED water, you NEED food, but because you do not choose to need these you think you are not to be defined by them.
This is a selective acceptance of your past.
Classic.

Your little poem, displaying how "advanced" you think you were, only expresses the desire to preserve your sense of self in a universe which denies it, with a simple change of perspective.
you can call yourself perfect, if you must, and you can think of yourself in heaven, if that is what you NEED, but every moment you exist as this emergent unity, becoming conscious of itself and the world around it, you struggle and fight and suffer.

What you call it is your business.

Abstract wrote:
this shows that you clearly are assuming things of what I say based on your preconceived notion of my ideals, that you really have no understanding of. When I say I have a goal, I mean there is something I want to do, it is not one given or something... I want to do it... and there is no reason not to.
No shit?
You mean when you say "goal" you mean something you "want to do"?!
Amazing.
I had no idea.

Abstract wrote:
I've heard that ego is a sin....but
sin is used to describe a thing that is wrong in all cases... I don't believe in such absolutes.[/quote]And yet here you are using it in exactly that capacity...an an insult.

Abstract wrote:
Egoism can lead one to do noble things due to the desire to uphold an image. Yet having a lack of desire to uphold an image can make one quite powerful in respect to doing what is necessary regardless of what people think.
You don't say.

Abstract wrote:
I am not reducing it to the skin I am saying the skin as the limit that is to say that the body is all that is the skin and beneath including brain and more...you need to think more of what I say rather then make assumptions satyr. Plus I am saying that that is only the way some people think of it anyways. And revealing that it is plausible that what a person is is not some magical defined thing but rather only a part of the universe, just some focusing of energies, but really what is to say "it" stops here or there as truly the connections continue beyond any limit we would define. Instead of ad homing or using a red herring or whatever might you suggest an alternative to this thought. or other wise understand it and recognize... cause my point here is to have a discussion and suggest thoughts not claim that they have to be true, my goal being to learn..rather then try to fight about who's dick is bigger... that is childish. IMO
Obviously it's a lost cause for me, because your dick is huge. It goes beyond experience to the unknown dimensions of time and space. It is a hypothetical penis, which nothing real, nothing tangible, can ever measure up to.

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



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:50 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
The problem is that you are paying attention to what you think I mean by the words I use, and not trying to understand my narrative...
Your narrative insinuates things about you and your manner of speaking and becoming.
That you are unaware of it speaks to the "Know Thyself" part.

Maybe you should follow through with your own reasoning, though it might be adopted and reflecting a popular narrative, to understand what you are truly implying with all your "positivity".
If I am positive it is only in the sense that I am content... if you think it is wrong to enjoy things and be satisfied then you have something wrong. Again you think things are showing through but you do not realize that i am not like most people...sure some might, but I don't hthink your understanding is very accurate...if anything it is a bit to text book and not experienced enough. IMO of course.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
There you go pulling shit out of your ass again, I do not think life has a purpose or meaning I think that at the most one decides their own purpose. However I must question the nature of how reality effects and causes our choices and thus may effectively "give" us a purpose. That depends on one's ideas regarding determinism I guess.
Again, you seem to have a problem thinking beyond your "narrative" and this makes you tiresome.

You begin with this feel-good proposition that you do not actually need life, but only to accomplish certain goals, and then you refuse to see how this would apply to a life-form beneath your level, such as it is.
Here you are contradicting yourself with every heart-beat.
That it is automatic makes you feel "innocent" in regards to it.
OK how is it that my "feel-good" proposition as you inappropriately call it applies to a life-form "beneath" my level? How am I contradicting myself. It is easy enough to say I am doing something why don't you show it satyr. I am always interested to find my flaws so that i can change. Again you seem to digress from the point though. Do you not agree that there is no prupose?

One thing I am interested in is if you are so anti spiritual or transcendent and all that crap, then how is it that you justify doing anything other then what benefits you and/or makes you content/happy/pleasured/satisfied?

Satyr wrote:

The first motive of the organism, whether it is aware of it or not, is self-preservation. All other "motives" stem from this.
You NEED oxygen, you NEED water, you NEED food, but because you do not choose to need these you think you are not to be defined by them.
This is a selective acceptance of your past.
Classic.
Of course the first motive is self-preservation, but then what makes you think a particular aspect of an organism must always be an aspect of that organism? Yet I do not seek self preservation that contradicts the reality of people comiting suicide. That shows that the primary goal is not simply preservation but to seek pleasure or benefit, pleasure being typically a benefit, such that when life is not feeding such to them it beings apparently more beneficial to take the life thus they do. Self-preservation is a result of a mentality that was naturally selected due to the fact that the seeking for benefit did well in aiding the survival of beings...Now instead of saying this sis some liberal idea or performing some ad hom or straw man or what have you why don't you provide a logical argument suggesting how this is not the case.

Satyr wrote:

Your little poem, displaying how "advanced" you think you were, only expresses the desire to preserve your sense of self in a universe which denies it, with a simple change of perspective.
A desire... That you think it was intended to make you think I was advanced is I think a reading on to me of your own typical psychological behavior, satyr. It was only meant to show you that I hold contrary ideas to your psychological analysis many years ago enough such that I have changed even from then though... which further shows your incapacity to understand the way I think... giving further evidence of your incapacity to accurately judge people psychologically...or rather me at least...you are rather decent with regards to many...

Satyr wrote:

you can call yourself perfect, if you must, and you can think of yourself in heaven, if that is what you NEED, but every moment you exist as this emergent unity, becoming conscious of itself and the world around it, you struggle and fight and suffer.

What you call it is your business.
I don't think I said anything about not struggling or fighting or suffering in that sense... rather I would only say that one need not let the shit bother one that much because it is to be expected... let it hurt in the moment and not continue preventing functioning afterwords... and if possible find a way to alter the psychological reactions to associate the a particular should-be-pains with pleasure... but that is not easy ,and can be bad as pain is typical a survival mechanism such as to inform a person of something that needs to be dealt with in order to maintain survival.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
this shows that you clearly are assuming things of what I say based on your preconceived notion of my ideals, that you really have no understanding of. When I say I have a goal, I mean there is something I want to do, it is not one given or something... I want to do it... and there is no reason not to.
No shit?
You mean when you say "goal" you mean something you "want to do"?!
Amazing.
I had no idea.
Your write I mis read what you said, I thought you were implying something else... reading it again though:

"An amoeba, or proto-life, knows of no "goals", except satisfying its needs.
The only reason you can even project goals for yourself, is because you have your basic needs satisfied."

One has basic needs satisfied that do aid survival... at such a state your ideas are correct regarding needs... however when a thing becomes conscious as we are we recognize that the programed action and desire towards living is not one that is necessary if it is not desirable.

The interesting thought that crosses my mind is that the mode of thought to consider things desirable say because they are pleasurable or not may be one that evolved such as to lead to particular beings self naturaly deselecting themselves such as to better aid the evolution of a species towards survival.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Satyr wrote:
I've heard that ego is a sin....but
sin is used to describe a thing that is wrong in all cases... I don't believe in such absolutes.
And yet here you are using it in exactly that capacity...an an insult.
When did I ever say ego was a sin, I only said that it has particular effects that can hamper survival, and thus those effect can be beneficial to evolve past psychologically.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Egoism can lead one to do noble things due to the desire to uphold an image. Yet having a lack of desire to uphold an image can make one quite powerful in respect to doing what is necessary regardless of what people think.
You don't say.
Just saying, but your arguments did not suggest you were familiar with that thought or rather that even if you are that it is consciously held well enough in your mind for you to very significantly benefit from it...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I am not reducing it to the skin I am saying the skin as the limit that is to say that the body is all that is the skin and beneath including brain and more...you need to think more of what I say rather then make assumptions satyr. Plus I am saying that that is only the way some people think of it anyways. And revealing that it is plausible that what a person is is not some magical defined thing but rather only a part of the universe, just some focusing of energies, but really what is to say "it" stops here or there as truly the connections continue beyond any limit we would define. Instead of ad homing or using a red herring or whatever might you suggest an alternative to this thought. or other wise understand it and recognize... cause my point here is to have a discussion and suggest thoughts not claim that they have to be true, my goal being to learn..rather then try to fight about who's dick is bigger... that is childish. IMO
Obviously it's a lost cause for me, because your dick is huge. It goes beyond experience to the unknown dimensions of time and space. It is a hypothetical penis, which nothing real, nothing tangible, can ever measure up to.
I didn't say anything about what I was talking about being intangible one can see the connections...Yet of course you ad hom, I am getting the pattern and seeing that it really is pointless trying to discuss anything with you that you do not already believe... your will have to figure it out for your self, if it is actually something accurate. maybe it is not, IDK... Though honestly refusal to listen to others is a bit of a survival mechanism as learning for the self, strengthens the minds capacity to think, that is for sure.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:39 pm

Abstract wrote:
If I am positive it is only in the sense that I am content...
Herein lies your delusion.

Again....read Schopenhauer, for I have no time for this.


Abstract wrote:
if you think it is wrong to enjoy things and be satisfied then you have something wrong.
Nothing mroe "wrong" here than when a christian claims salvation.
Glad to hear about your elusive contentment.
Let me just say that your level of contentment is a usual thing for me.
I understand what it is and why it is so.
Feel free to remain on the level which you are at.

Abstract wrote:
Again you think things are showing through but you do not realize that i am not like most people...sure some might, but I don't think your understanding is very accurate...if anything it is a bit to text book and not experienced enough. IMO of course.
No, I am certain that you think you are something unique.

Abstract wrote:
OK how is it that my "feel-good" proposition as you inappropriately call it applies to a life-form "beneath" my level? How am I contradicting myself. It is easy enough to say I am doing something why don't you show it satyr. I am always interested to find my flaws so that i can change. Again you seem to digress from the point though. Do you not agree that there is no prupose?
Actually your assessment that you live, without need, but with purpose, while agreeing that there is no purpose, tells me you have no clue, as you begin with yourself and end there.
you, a product of western sheltering, living in a very privileged environment, declare yourself without need, though your entire essence contradicts it, based on the assumption that you knowing it is the same as being it...the mind/body dichotomy.
I'm sure an ape does not know why it grooms another ape, yet it does it anyhow.

You need not understand or even know the need to fulfill it., If it were not so then life would never evolve beyond the level of a cell.
Understanding comes after knowing, and knowing comes after becoming.

What you are experiencing is an emerging and spotty awareness of yourself and the world around you.
Abstract wrote:
One thing I am interested in is if you are so anti spiritual or transcendent and all that crap, then how is it that you justify doing anything other then what benefits you and/or makes you content/happy/pleasured/satisfied?
My spirituality does not exclude this, unlike yours, presumably.
I just put my pleasure into perspective instead of making it a universal "truth". I separate my self-interests from reality.

How, fucking, retarded do you have to be to assume that what makes you feel good is what is a universal truth?
You speak of arrogance and ego, you simpleton?
See your own?

Am I a bully, you weakling?
no, because nothing can match the hidden, hypocritical, arrogance of a bully like you.
Your pleasure, retard, means nothing to me, as I'm sure mine means nothing to you.
Difference is, simpleton, I know...whereas you do not.

I cannot even begin to fathom the arrogance of a moron who thinks his own good fortune and his own pleasure represents some great universal truism.
THAT level of stupidity I cannot relate to, except on a very base, animalistic level.
it is so alien to me and my own essence that I respond to it as I would to a pile of feces.

Of course over the years I have become aware about what it is and from where it comes from. I have also come to recognize it in ts many duplicitous forms.

Abstract wrote:
Of course the first motive is self-preservation, but then what makes you think a particular aspect of an organism must always be an aspect of that organism?
What methods you use to pretend that you are over your past is your affair, I simply reserve the right to take advantage of it.

Abstract wrote:
Yet I do not seek self preservation that contradicts the reality of people comiting suicide. That shows that the primary goal is not simply preservation but to seek pleasure or benefit, pleasure being typically a benefit, such that when life is not feeding such to them it beings apparently more beneficial to take the life thus they do. Self-preservation is a result of a mentality that was naturally selected due to the fact that the seeking for benefit did well in aiding the survival of beings...Now instead of saying this sis some liberal idea or performing some ad hom or straw man or what have you why don't you provide a logical argument suggesting how this is not the case.
Is this the dreaded Russian Tank?
I've only heard hedonism raised into a virtue from that douche-bag.

That you do not understand what suicide is or why a mother sacrifices herself for her offspring or why retards sacrifice themselves in the name of an ideal, is your problem, dear boy.
That you can't understand why a peacock tolerates a tail which will get him killed before it gets him laid, is your problem, dear boy.
That you don't know what pleasure is or how it functions upon your reasoning, is your problem, dear boy.
I think the delusion that YOUR pleasure is some transcendental fact should suffice to expose you to suffering I can only imagine. No amount of sheltering can save you from that.
You either pay in increments or in one lump sum, but entropy is as it is, and pay you must, one way or another. Unless you claim to be a God.

Abstract wrote:
A desire... That you think it was intended to make you think I was advanced is I think a reading on to me of your own typical psychological behavior, satyr. It was only meant to show you that I hold contrary ideas to your psychological analysis many years ago enough such that I have changed even from then though... which further shows your incapacity to understand the way I think... giving further evidence of your incapacity to accurately judge people psychologically...or rather me at least...you are rather decent with regards to many...
I am sure that your earlier contact with me has forced you to rearrange your established delusions and prejudices.
Rearranging the furniture in a room does not really change much of the content.
Stir a pile of shit around and see what you get.
Still the same pile of shit, arranged in a different manner, pretending to be "different".

Abstract wrote:
I don't think I said anything about not struggling or fighting or suffering in that sense... rather I would only say that one need not let the shit bother one that much because it is to be expected...
I suppose that when a retard is protected enough from his own stupidity he can spend his life distracting himself with mundane pleasures which he considers the ends of the world.
A child would think playing is the epitome of existing when daddy is watching over him and mommy has her tit at the ready.
Enjoy your stay on the planet earth, boy....that's all you'll have.

Abstract wrote:
When did I ever say ego was a sin, I only said that it has particular effects that can hamper survival, and thus those effect can be beneficial to evolve past psychologically.
Jesus Christ, boy, the mere mention of a famous figure and you go running for cover. I bet if I had said it, without the quotations, you would have attacked with force.
Now you cower like a bitch.

I think all this pleasure seeking has resulted in some tangible consequences.

Abstract wrote:
I didn't say anything about what I was talking about being intangible one can see the connections...Yet of course you ad hom, I am getting the pattern and seeing that it really is pointless trying to discuss anything with you that you do not already believe... your will have to figure it out for your self, if it is actually something accurate. maybe it is not, IDK... Though honestly refusal to listen to others is a bit of a survival mechanism as learning for the self, strengthens the minds capacity to think, that is for sure.
Boy, tell me something I haven't heard about a thousand times before.

A christian once accused me of the same thing.
He also claimed that I did not get Christianity. Presumably that was the only way he could defend his faith without exposing the fact that he had less understanding of it than I did.
That you think this is something NEW to me only exposes your naivete.

It's interesting, even if predictable, to always find the same shit coming at me.
When someone runs out of arguments he is left with either questioning his beliefs or accusing the other of not understanding them.

He is then miffed that he cannot proselytize me, or even gain my respect, even though he has no clue about what I am saying but more so about what he is implying with his very own views.

Should I entertain every moron out there with an opinion claiming to be my superior?
Should I pretend to respect he most nihilistic, pathetic, delusional, fucked-up propositioning out there, simply to retain the social reputation that I am "open-minded"?
Only if my reputation amongst stunted minds matters to me and the Golden Rule takes precedence over my own intellectual integrity.

I guess the answer is NO!

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



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:37 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
If I am positive it is only in the sense that I am content...
Herein lies your delusion.

Again....read Schopenhauer, for I have no time for this.
How the fuck do you know whether I am or not...jesus you act like you can read minds...I am satisfied, i feel satisfied...whatever though..think what you want...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
if you think it is wrong to enjoy things and be satisfied then you have something wrong.
Nothing mroe "wrong" here than when a christian claims salvation.
Glad to hear about your elusive contentment.
Let me just say that your level of contentment is a usual thing for me.
I understand what it is and why it is so.
Feel free to remain on the level which you are at.
So apparently only you are the one capable of achieving true content...I understand now... Apparently tyou think my typing behavior is suggestive of my capacity to be content... as if my suggestion of irritation perhaps is representative of my mood or satisfaction or enjoyment...you are Silly Satyr.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Again you think things are showing through but you do not realize that i am not like most people...sure some might, but I don't think your understanding is very accurate...if anything it is a bit to text book and not experienced enough. IMO of course.
No, I am certain that you think you are something unique.
Everything is different then something else if not in the least in the fact that it is mostly the same except that it is in a different time... But I do not believe that I am unique. Perhaps I am rare though, perhaps I say, i do not believe that I am... unfortunately i do not know every being on earth or that has ever existed in this universe and such, so any belief of uniquity or rarity would clearly be unjustified.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
OK how is it that my "feel-good" proposition as you inappropriately call it applies to a life-form "beneath" my level? How am I contradicting myself. It is easy enough to say I am doing something why don't you show it satyr. I am always interested to find my flaws so that i can change. Again you seem to digress from the point though. Do you not agree that there is no prupose?
Actually your assessment that you live, without need, but with purpose, while agreeing that there is no purpose, tells me you have no clue, as you begin with yourself and end there.
Jesus you are simplifying and taking what I say out of context, If anything i said: I do need but only because I desire to live (if I was dead I would not need), I have a self defined goal that I can call a purpose (but that is just symantics perhaps), I do not have a purpose at least not in the sense of it being given by something else. (again unless everything including my choices are predetermined in which case it my be fair to consider it "given") There are some people where i could say it as you implied i said it and they would use logical charity to deduce what i meant, rather then presuming that I was illogical and thus what I said made no sense. (it is the case where even though it sounds like a contradiction (as in the tao te ching for example) given logical charity one can deduce the differing meaning in the words and recognize a logical meaning...)

Satyr wrote:

you, a product of western sheltering, living in a very privileged environment, declare yourself without need, though your entire essence contradicts it, based on the assumption that you knowing it is the same as being it...the mind/body dichotomy.
I'm sure an ape does not know why it grooms another ape, yet it does it anyhow.

You need not understand or even know the need to fulfill it., If it were not so then life would never evolve beyond the level of a cell.
Understanding comes after knowing, and knowing comes after becoming.

What you are experiencing is an emerging and spotty awareness of yourself and the world around you.
all 1st world countries people experience being sheltered. i recognize quite well that i would be cussing my ass off living under particular cases, that does not however change the fact that I enjoy life, further I didn't say anything about not being able to be in a state where i did not enjoy the situation and thus sought any means of escape... that is always possible... nonetheless i appreciate life, perhaps that is my primary point...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
One thing I am interested in is if you are so anti spiritual or transcendent and all that crap, then how is it that you justify doing anything other then what benefits you and/or makes you content/happy/pleasured/satisfied?
My spirituality does not exclude this, unlike yours, presumably.
I just put my pleasure into perspective instead of making it a universal "truth". I separate my self-interests from reality.

How, fucking, retarded do you have to be to assume that what makes you feel good is what is a universal truth?
When did i ever say that what makes me feel good applies to all? might you quote the section you think implied this so I can translate for you.

Satyr wrote:

You speak of arrogance and ego, you simpleton?
See your own?
I never said I was not egotistical, however the fact that you are misreading what i mean suggests this is not a matter in which i am being egotistical.

Satyr wrote:

Am I a bully, you weakling?
no, because nothing can match the hidden, hypocritical, arrogance of a bully like you.
Your pleasure, retard, means nothing to me, as I'm sure mine means nothing to you.
Difference is, simpleton, I know...whereas you do not.
you are spouting shit as if you think I do not know it...that is interesting. I imagine you think you are unique and the only one that knows what you know.

Satyr wrote:

I cannot even begin to fathom the arrogance of a moron who thinks his own good fortune and his own pleasure represents some great universal truism.
I fail to see how you deduced that as I recognize quite well that is not how I think... Have I not said enough i do not believe in such absolutes?

Satyr wrote:

THAT level of stupidity I cannot relate to, except on a very base, animalistic level.
it is so alien to me and my own essence that I respond to it as I would to a pile of feces.
Funny that something you are pulling out of your ass is , "so alien" to you.

Satyr wrote:

Of course over the years I have become aware about what it is and from where it comes from. I have also come to recognize it in ts many duplicitous forms.
sorry, that was funny considering what I just said.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Of course the first motive is self-preservation, but then what makes you think a particular aspect of an organism must always be an aspect of that organism?
What methods you use to pretend that you are over your past is your affair, I simply reserve the right to take advantage of it.
That did not answer the question satyr.. you are just ridiculous about avoiding actual discussion... I mean it this is really getting boring, I want to learn not fart around with words. You have no justification for you belief other then believing in it... that is fine, that is the same reason some people believe in God... Perhaps it helpt you too that particular texts back up this theory of yours. It is obvious that some one who commits suicide does not give a rats ass about self-preservation, (Encase you wanted some empirical support for my theory)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Yet I do not seek self preservation that contradicts the reality of people comiting suicide. That shows that the primary goal is not simply preservation but to seek pleasure or benefit, pleasure being typically a benefit, such that when life is not feeding such to them it beings apparently more beneficial to take the life thus they do. Self-preservation is a result of a mentality that was naturally selected due to the fact that the seeking for benefit did well in aiding the survival of beings...Now instead of saying this sis some liberal idea or performing some ad hom or straw man or what have you why don't you provide a logical argument suggesting how this is not the case.
Is this the dreaded Russian Tank?
I've only heard hedonism raised into a virtue from that douche-bag.

That you do not understand what suicide is or why a mother sacrifices herself for her offspring or why retards sacrifice themselves in the name of an ideal, is your problem, dear boy.
So you are suggesting that the reason a person sacrifices themself is for the sake of the survival of the rest of humanity. you mentioned a few cases however that is clearly not always the case. As that does not explain suicide of people who do so out of pure depression.

Satyr wrote:

That you can't understand why a peacock tolerates a tail which will get him killed before it gets him laid, is your problem, dear boy.
That you don't know what pleasure is or how it functions upon your reasoning, is your problem, dear boy.
I think the delusion that YOUR pleasure is some transcendental fact should suffice to expose you to suffering I can only imagine. No amount of sheltering can save you from that.
Transcendental fact? How do you fit so much up your ass?
No seriously can you quote some of what i previously said if you think it suggests such?

Satyr wrote:

You either pay in increments or in one lump sum, but entropy is as it is, and pay you must, one way or another. Unless you claim to be a God.
I didn't say anything about not having to pay. I accept that and as such I don't let it both me, that doesn't mean I do not consider it with regards to my actions though.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
A desire... That you think it was intended to make you think I was advanced is I think a reading on to me of your own typical psychological behavior, satyr. It was only meant to show you that I hold contrary ideas to your psychological analysis many years ago enough such that I have changed even from then though... which further shows your incapacity to understand the way I think... giving further evidence of your incapacity to accurately judge people psychologically...or rather me at least...you are rather decent with regards to many...
I am sure that your earlier contact with me has forced you to rearrange your established delusions and prejudices.
Rearranging the furniture in a room does not really change much of the content.
Stir a pile of shit around and see what you get.
Still the same pile of shit, arranged in a different manner, pretending to be "different".
I see You refuse to believe that someone hold particular ideas you hold again because you think you are unique and hold the exact psychological behavior as I mentioned...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I don't think I said anything about not struggling or fighting or suffering in that sense... rather I would only say that one need not let the shit bother one that much because it is to be expected...
I suppose that when a retard is protected enough from his own stupidity he can spend his life distracting himself with mundane pleasures which he considers the ends of the world.
A child would think playing is the epitome of existing when daddy is watching over him and mommy has her tit at the ready.
Enjoy your stay on the planet earth, boy....that's all you'll have.
I didn't say anything about it being impossible to bother one either... i said one should not let it bother them, and i left out the part, "when they can"... again because I thought you would give me some logical charity rather then going about presuming i am an idiot... though honestly I am beginning to see that that instinctual behavior of mine is rather silly in the context of our interaction. I need to explain things more explicitly to aid your translation. But honestly I do not know that i can stand up to your requirements.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
When did I ever say ego was a sin, I only said that it has particular effects that can hamper survival, and thus those effect can be beneficial to evolve past psychologically.
Jesus Christ, boy, the mere mention of a famous figure and you go running for cover. I bet if I had said it, without the quotations, you would have attacked with force.
Now you cower like a bitch.

I think all this pleasure seeking has resulted in some tangible consequences.
How did i go running for cover, and how does what we are talking about now have much if anything to do with a famous figure and cowering rather then just understanding our understandings of ego?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I didn't say anything about what I was talking about being intangible one can see the connections...Yet of course you ad hom, I am getting the pattern and seeing that it really is pointless trying to discuss anything with you that you do not already believe... your will have to figure it out for your self, if it is actually something accurate. maybe it is not, IDK... Though honestly refusal to listen to others is a bit of a survival mechanism as learning for the self, strengthens the minds capacity to think, that is for sure.
Boy, tell me something I haven't heard about a thousand times before.

A christian once accused me of the same thing.
He also claimed that I did not get Christianity. Presumably that was the only way he could defend his faith without exposing the fact that he had less understanding of it than I did.
That you think this is something NEW to me only exposes your naivete.
The fact it is not something new is rather suggestive of potential accuracy of the point. Of course you will disagree, especially because a christian also said it, and anybody who believe in stupid cannot spout a single thing that is true...you do enjoy your absolutist generalizations it would seem.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:20 pm

Abstract wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
If I am positive it is only in the sense that I am content...
Herein lies your delusion.

Again....read Schopenhauer, for I have no time for this.
How the fuck do you know whether I am or not...jesus you act like you can read minds...I am satisfied, i feel satisfied...whatever though..think what you want...
I don't need to read minds boy. I know what existence is and I also know what you call "contentment".
Simple.
Your level of "contentment" I already have.

Abstract wrote:
Jesus you are simplifying and taking what I say out of context, If anything i said: I do need but only because I desire to live (if I was dead I would not need), I have a self defined goal that I can call a purpose (but that is just symantics perhaps), I do not have a purpose at least not in the sense of it being given by something else. (again unless everything including my choices are predetermined in which case it my be fair to consider it "given") There are some people where i could say it as you implied i said it and they would use logical charity to deduce what i meant, rather then presuming that I was illogical and thus what I said made no sense. (it is the case where even though it sounds like a contradiction (as in the tao te ching for example) given logical charity one can deduce the differing meaning in the words and recognize a logical meaning...)
Keep spinning. The text is there.

Abstract wrote:
When did i ever say that what makes me feel good applies to all? might you quote the section you think implied this so I can translate for you.
Dear boy, you present your presumed "contentment" as evidence that need is not life.

Abstract wrote:
I never said I was not egotistical, however the fact that you are misreading what i mean suggests this is not a matter in which i am being egotistical.
No but you used "ego" as an assault against me, implying that you were not to be accused of such a thing.

I think you have no clue as to what you are saying and why. Anyone who claims to be content has no idea what is going on. He just wishes to present himself as "happy" to convince himself and others that this is so.
But, here you are, boy....contradicting your every word.
Why are you here boy, if you are so content?
The first thing that pops into your mind is what contradicts what will follow.
Are you bored, like God, creating and acting just for the fuck of it?
Are you brimming with energies you wish to share?

Abstract wrote:
I fail to see how you deduced that as I recognize quite well that is not how I think... Have I not said enough i do not believe in such absolutes?
A Christian states that he believes in a One and only benevolent God, and yet he still acts as if he does not really believe it.

Never, ever, listen to a woman speak, for she will contradict it with her actions soon after. Then she will seek to justify it by changing her mind, all of a sudden. You, dear boy, are a woman.

Abstract wrote:
So you are suggesting that the reason a person sacrifices themself is for the sake of the survival of the rest of humanity. you mentioned a few cases however that is clearly not always the case. As that does not explain suicide of people who do so out of pure depression.
Not quite, boy.
It has to do with identity.

Abstract wrote:
I didn't say anything about not having to pay. I accept that and as such I don't let it both me, that doesn't mean I do not consider it with regards to my actions though.
So, you DO care.

Abstract wrote:
The fact it is not something new is rather suggestive of potential accuracy of the point. Of course you will disagree, especially because a christian also said it, and anybody who believe in stupid cannot spout a single thing that is true...you do enjoy your absolutist generalizations it would seem.
There is no absolute in a generalization, boy.
If I say a polar bear hunts seals, this is not an absolute but it is a description of a pattern of a specific manifestation of nature that holds true for a general population within a given period of time.

Boy, saying that wolves eat meat is not an absolute.
Am I a mind reader when I say that wolves eat meat?
Do I need to get into their head to say it?

Do you have a clue?

_________________
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 08, 2011 5:24 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
If I am positive it is only in the sense that I am content...
Herein lies your delusion.

Again....read Schopenhauer, for I have no time for this.
How the fuck do you know whether I am or not...jesus you act like you can read minds...I am satisfied, i feel satisfied...whatever though..think what you want...
I don't need to read minds boy. I know what existence is and I also know what you call "contentment".
Simple.
Your level of "contentment" I already have.
Ok...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Jesus you are simplifying and taking what I say out of context, If anything i said: I do need but only because I desire to live (if I was dead I would not need), I have a self defined goal that I can call a purpose (but that is just symantics perhaps), I do not have a purpose at least not in the sense of it being given by something else. (again unless everything including my choices are predetermined in which case it my be fair to consider it "given") There are some people where i could say it as you implied i said it and they would use logical charity to deduce what i meant, rather then presuming that I was illogical and thus what I said made no sense. (it is the case where even though it sounds like a contradiction (as in the tao te ching for example) given logical charity one can deduce the differing meaning in the words and recognize a logical meaning...)
Keep spinning. The text is there.
Yes saytr I am spinning

Abstract wrote:
When did i ever say that what makes me feel good applies to all? might you quote the section you think implied this so I can translate for you.
Dear boy, you present your presumed "contentment" as evidence that need is not life. [/quote] That was a side point it was not intended as evidence of such, it was brought up as a result of other things that came up in the conversation... it is simple enough to recognize that one need not life if they do not desire it, regardless of whether that desire was arisen out of life or not... this would even then show that life is not needed but rather a programed in thought-to-be needed...(I would agree at your implication that so long as you live things are needed... thus life does involve such...but one does not need life) but whatever...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I never said I was not egotistical, however the fact that you are misreading what i mean suggests this is not a matter in which i am being egotistical.
No but you used "ego" as an assault against me, implying that you were not to be accused of such a thing.
Implications are read by a person based on their understanding of the words used and the typical associations they are familiar with when those particular ideas are presented... you seem often to associate my thoughts with what you typically have encountered in associations rather then believing or hearing my rather different recognitions... I used ego to suggest that your being resistant to listening to what i say, and that it is your ego that is causing such...of course i do not know such... it could simply be that due to the difference of where we live we have different understandings of the verbiage we use, and different notions conceived of what they should mean...
Satyr wrote:

I think you have no clue as to what you are saying and why.
that is part of the problem.

Satyr wrote:
Anyone who claims to be content has no idea what is going on. He just wishes to present himself as "happy" to convince himself and others that this is so.
But, here you are, boy....contradicting your every word.
Why are you here boy, if you are so content?
The first thing that pops into your mind is what contradicts what will follow.
Are you bored, like God, creating and acting just for the fuck of it?
Are you brimming with energies you wish to share?
Why would being content prevent me from being here? (when I say content I do not mean "I need nothing else" perhaps that is another misunderstanding we are having... I just mean I am pleased with where I am consistently...)(thogh i don't know how I would react to such as say torture...but most things...just don't bother me...)

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I fail to see how you deduced that as I recognize quite well that is not how I think... Have I not said enough i do not believe in such absolutes?
A Christian states that he believes in a One and only benevolent God, and yet he still acts as if he does not really believe it.

Never, ever, listen to a woman speak, for she will contradict it with her actions soon after. Then she will seek to justify it by changing her mind, all of a sudden. You, dear boy, are a woman.
The irony here is that it is only a contradiction so long as you think i am christian... At the least I believe in what I think you once called "The absolute" (i'm not sure) I might call it the tao.. and I think it is what influenced the ideas of God in Christianity... as to whether it is something that thinks or anything else i do not know... i imagine such is plausible... but how can one know one way or another...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
So you are suggesting that the reason a person sacrifices themself is for the sake of the survival of the rest of humanity. you mentioned a few cases however that is clearly not always the case. As that does not explain suicide of people who do so out of pure depression.
Not quite, boy.
It has to do with identity.
Funny that you call me a woman and then a boy... anyways... are you saying that sacrifice of the self has to do with identiy?
If it has to do with that other then survival then it would seem only logical for you to agree my previous theory...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I didn't say anything about not having to pay. I accept that and as such I don't let it both me, that doesn't mean I do not consider it with regards to my actions though.
So, you DO care.
How can noe not have concern or consideration with regards to the goals they have... yet i do not hold anxiety in association with what I do care about...typically... I don't think I ever daid i care about nothing... at the most I might say such and mean that I don't typically or am quite could at not maintaining anxiety in regards to such... considering the etymological definition of care (caro = anxiety in latin...) Now adays we tend to think that considering or acting with respect to ,,, having preference for..implies anxiety... that is understandable as i guess for many it does...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
The fact it is not something new is rather suggestive of potential accuracy of the point. Of course you will disagree, especially because a christian also said it, and anybody who believe in stupid cannot spout a single thing that is true...you do enjoy your absolutist generalizations it would seem.
There is no absolute in a generalization, boy.
If I say a polar bear hunts seals, this is not an absolute but it is a description of a pattern of a specific manifestation of nature that holds true for a general population within a given period of time.
Fair enough yet it seems that many such generalizations you make you hold to a higher percentage of statistical relevence then is logically applicable to the given consideration...IMO... and yes many people do generalize all things such as to apply to all in all situation as if they are absolutes...there may not be such intended in your own... if not then we have that linguistics does not meat your form of understanding very well...which is common amongs people holding thoughts not mainstream... bad and unfortunately good.

Satyr wrote:

Boy, saying that wolves eat meat is not an absolute.
Am I a mind reader when I say that wolves eat meat?
Do I need to get into their head to say it?

Do you have a clue?
UI wouldn't suggest regarding all generalizations... that would be an absolute generalizations... rather it seems particular ones you suggest are absolutist, or rather you act as if they are... for example it seems you think there are particular psychological behaviors that are universal throughout humans... or at least that must apply to me when they don't...
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:30 pm

Abstract wrote:

That was a side point it was not intended as evidence of such, it was brought up as a result of other things that came up in the conversation... it is simple enough to recognize that one need not life if they do not desire it, regardless of whether that desire was arisen out of life or not... this would even then show that life is not needed but rather a programed in thought-to-be needed...(I would agree at your implication that so long as you live things are needed... thus life does involve such...but one does not need life) but whatever...
Again....life is not needed, life IS need, or it is the consciousness of Flux which is interpreted as need.
Life is an ordering in the disordering....ergo it interprets disordering as need/suffering because it is a resistance to it.
What is needed?
Order....God....Unity....the absent absolute.
Of course the latter is a metaphor for the innate sensation of existing in constant need.
Desire, want, is the focus of this need upon an object/objective - your goal - which promises a fulfillment of this void....even if it is the form of a meaning which is absent in existing.

Abstract wrote:
that is part of the problem.
What, you not understanding?
Definitely.
Ego has a negative connotation for you western boys raised within Judeo-Christian ethics. for me it is a Greek word, a common and everyday one, which means "me" or "self".
Even language has been hijacked to brainwash you people.
Egotism became sinful and insulting, along with pride, when Christianity infected Rome.

Abstract wrote:
Why would being content prevent me from being here? (when I say content I do not mean "I need nothing else" perhaps that is another misunderstanding we are having... I just mean I am pleased with where I am consistently...)(thogh i don't know how I would react to such as say torture...but most things...just don't bother me...)
A hunter who is full, doe not go out hunting.
A lover who is satiated, does not dream of another fuck.
The knower of all, does not seek knowledge.
The all-powerful has no need to increase his power.
The one who has everything need not create.
The immortal need not procreate.

That you might prepare and look ahead only exposes how your "contentment" is built on fragile grounds and it requires constant upkeep.

Abstract wrote:
The irony here is that it is only a contradiction so long as you think i am christian... At the least I believe in what I think you once called "The absolute" (i'm not sure) I might call it the tao.. and I think it is what influenced the ideas of God in Christianity... as to whether it is something that thinks or anything else i do not know... i imagine such is plausible... but how can one know one way or another...
Listen to me, you don't have to follow christian traditions or call yourself one, to be infected by its basic principles and its myths.

Abstract wrote:
Funny that you call me a woman and then a boy... anyways... are you saying that sacrifice of the self has to do with identiy?
If it has to do with that other then survival then it would seem only logical for you to agree my previous theory...
That's a big topic.
Identity, in short, is a continuum held together by memory.
A genes is a biologically codified memory of all that preceded you; the meme is a form of memory that accentuates or tries to usurp this genetic memory.
In the latter case, for reasons I will not get into now, it basically brain-washes the individual, causing him to think one thing while behaving, because the genes cannot e erased, in a manner which contradicts what one thinks.

Not totally sure, but your ignorance concerning your Christian mind, might be an example.

Abstract wrote:
I wouldn't suggest regarding all generalizations... that would be an absolute generalizations... rather it seems particular ones you suggest are absolutist, or rather you act as if they are... for example it seems you think there are particular psychological behaviors that are universal throughout humans... or at least that must apply to me when they don't...
A wold being a carnivore or a bird possessing the ability to fly, is a pattern, boy., not an absolute. It is not absolute because it is not eternal and set in stone, as tomorrow the circumstances might change...or rather the change might happens gradually.
The sun rising tomorrow, boy, is not an absolute.
It is a probability, a high one granted, based on previous experiences which establish a pattern of behavior which is not eternal, but ephemeral.
The sun one day will not come up as there will be no sun.

Patterns, boy, are what make life possible and consciousness, even more so, potent.
A pattern, also called "logic", is a behavior which exhibits a pattern of consistent predictability, over a period of time exceeding the lifetime of an individual and of humanity in general.
The latter because patterns or their observance can be reported and passed down, via knowledge, from generation to generation.

Logic, also, has the added advantage of remaining loyal to its own beginning premises.
For example, 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 are logical statements once you accept the starting proposition of a 1, and the implication of a nil, as being self-evident.
The system remains loyal to its own premises, and so the patterns it produces are logical.

It is also logical to assume I and you will die not because we are clairvoyant but because we've experienced death, in one form or another, and we know enough about biology and its consistent predictability, or as we've interpreted it into a system, to recognize a pattern which is more probable than not.


But these patterns are not guaranteed to be eternal or that they are not changing, except for the human system of patterns (mathematics) which is entirely a human mental construct.

_________________
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 08, 2011 9:05 pm

Satyr wrote:

Again....life is not needed, life IS need, or it is the consciousness of Flux which is interpreted as need.
Life is an ordering in the disordering....ergo it interprets disordering as need/suffering because it is a resistance to it.
What is needed?
Order....God....Unity....the absent absolute.
Of course the latter is a metaphor for the innate sensation of existing in constant need.
Desire, want, is the focus of this need upon an object/objective - your goal - which promises a fulfillment of this void....even if it is the form of a meaning which is absent in existing.
So perhaps you are suggesting that when we desire we need to fulfill that desire? When we no longer feel the need for it... we are no longer desireing it....?

To say life IS need though seems like a suggestive of a verbal algorithm that might be apt to leave out particular considerations... but perhaps i am getting a feeling for your thoughts...to think, one might say "Life is x." wherein x can be replaced with anything... because so long as you are dead...(not aware, at the least) there is nothing...

There would seem to be need for some verbal division that can be applied for distinguishing between needs that are one's you can't get around so long as you are living... and needs that are such only so long as desired...?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
that is part of the problem.
What, you not understanding?
Definitely.
Ego has a negative connotation for you western boys raised within Judeo-Christian ethics. for me it is a Greek word, a common and everyday one, which means "me" or "self".
Even language has been hijacked to brainwash you people.
Egotism became sinful and insulting, along with pride, when Christianity infected Rome.
What i meant is part of the problem is that you think I have no clue about what I am saying... but honestly I must say that I cannot understand everything you say...clearly. I am unsure to what degree this is a result of a lack of my wisdom or yours, though I would suspect that as usual the blame does not fall in one place.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Why would being content prevent me from being here? (when I say content I do not mean "I need nothing else" perhaps that is another misunderstanding we are having... I just mean I am pleased with where I am consistently...)(thogh i don't know how I would react to such as say torture...but most things...just don't bother me...)
A hunter who is full, doe not go out hunting.
A lover who is satiated, does not dream of another fuck.
The knower of all, does not seek knowledge.
The all-powerful has no need to increase his power.
The one who has everything need not create.
The immortal need not procreate.

That you might prepare and look ahead only exposes how your "contentment" is built on fragile grounds and it requires constant upkeep.
I just defined my use of the word differently then what you just suggested... I am not distraut by things...I don't know honestly most words to try to describe it end up meaning one has attained all with regards to a particular thing... I recognize i have not attained all... in fact I consider that really one cannot attain all that they might want... my point is that i am fine with that... if I do not get what i want... or if I have to face the rest of my life living out side and digging in dumpsters for a living... I don't hold anxiety in regard to such... it does not bother me...If I have to live fighting a war constantly fighting to survive... it would not make me feel in a way that i would not be able to be comfortable feeling... apparently this is a state that there are not simple words such as "contentment" that can be used to simply describe...

Maybe I could say I enjoy being in a state where I don't have everything i want... because then i would have nothing to do... and i like doing...IDK

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
The irony here is that it is only a contradiction so long as you think i am christian... At the least I believe in what I think you once called "The absolute" (i'm not sure) I might call it the tao.. and I think it is what influenced the ideas of God in Christianity... as to whether it is something that thinks or anything else i do not know... i imagine such is plausible... but how can one know one way or another...
Listen to me, you don't have to follow christian traditions or call yourself one, to be infected by its basic principles and its myths.
Of course not, by no means would I claim not to be influenced by christianity... if you live in america, you have been... it is reasonable to call anybody who is american (but perhaps the most secluded) christians... maong many of other countries too of course... however I think you are thinking I hold some ideas that I do not...

personnaly I would refer to what I refer to as god or the tao as simply the all... all most the univers... except all includes what is outside of the univers e if ther is such...and all that...

at the least...mystical to me...means that which is yet sufficiently understood...

I think of different ways of understanding a thing as like different languages that have developed for coping with reality... the perfect one will not arrise some may be better but it is nonetheless beneficial to be able to speak in as many as one can... perhaps sometimes I mix such "languages" and that has confused you because you are a very logical mind and logical minds tend to be more literal (To say that was a bad thing would be to punch myself in the face...)

Perhaps you expect me to entirely describe my understanding or position on a thing the first time I try to say it?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Funny that you call me a woman and then a boy... anyways... are you saying that sacrifice of the self has to do with identiy?
If it has to do with that other then survival then it would seem only logical for you to agree my previous theory...
That's a big topic.
Identity, in short, is a continuum held together by memory.
A genes is a biologically codified memory of all that preceded you; the meme is a form of memory that accentuates or tries to usurp this genetic memory.
In the latter case, for reasons I will not get into now, it basically brain-washes the individual, causing him to think one thing while behaving, because the genes cannot e erased, in a manner which contradicts what one thinks.
That is because it was by repitation of such memes that things were genetically codefied... this allows for adaption.

Satyr wrote:

Not totally sure, but your ignorance concerning your Christian mind, might be an example.
I won't deny that I have the influence but i am yet clear as to which christian memes you think have infected my brain?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I wouldn't suggest regarding all generalizations... that would be an absolute generalizations... rather it seems particular ones you suggest are absolutist, or rather you act as if they are... for example it seems you think there are particular psychological behaviors that are universal throughout humans... or at least that must apply to me when they don't...
A wold being a carnivore or a bird possessing the ability to fly, is a pattern, boy., not an absolute. It is not absolute because it is not eternal and set in stone, as tomorrow the circumstances might change...or rather the change might happens gradually.
The sun rising tomorrow, boy, is not an absolute.
It is a probability, a high one granted, based on previous experiences which establish a pattern of behavior which is not eternal, but ephemeral.
The sun one day will not come up as there will be no sun.

Patterns, boy, are what make life possible and consciousness, even more so, potent.
A pattern, also called "logic", is a behavior which exhibits a pattern of consistent predictability, over a period of time exceeding the lifetime of an individual and of humanity in general.
The latter because patterns or their observance can be reported and passed down, via knowledge, from generation to generation.

Logic, also, has the added advantage of remaining loyal to its own beginning premises.
For example, 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 are logical statements once you accept the starting proposition of a 1, and the implication of a nil, as being self-evident.
The system remains loyal to its own premises, and so the patterns it produces are logical.

It is also logical to assume I and you will die not because we are clairvoyant but because we've experienced death, in one form or another, and we know enough about biology and its consistent predictability, or as we've interpreted it into a system, to recognize a pattern which is more probable than not.


But these patterns are not guaranteed to be eternal or that they are not changing, except for the human system of patterns (mathematics) which is entirely a human mental construct.
I thought that is what i just said... and that nonetheless you seem to be thinking that in certain areas I am not an outlier to that pattern...surely you think I think this indicates a desire to be seen as or to think of the self as unique... yet outliers are not uique... at the least they are rare, there is a difference. And I would not claim such rarity in all aspects of my self... yet rather it seems you are expecting me to be of a pattern because I seem to be exibiting certain qualities that are suggestive of fitting it...yet I don't... part of it is though that you are misunderstanding a bit of what i say... because you have expectations of the way I mean with some of the words I use... Perhaps contentment is one... which is honestly reasonable considering what perhaps most mean by it yet again i find that many use that such as i do... Perhaps I expected you to understand what I meant by context... perhaps my context was not best formed either...
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:35 pm

Abstract wrote:
So perhaps you are suggesting that when we desire we need to fulfill that desire? When we no longer feel the need for it... we are no longer desireing it....?
No, our desire always changes, the need remains constant. Need dissipates, falls beneath our conscious awareness.
Desire alters. We desire that woman, then later we see another and we desire her. Even if we see the same women again she is not the same, so we desire a later manifestation of her.

Abstract wrote:
To say life IS need though seems like a suggestive of a verbal algorithm that might be apt to leave out particular considerations... but perhaps i am getting a feeling for your thoughts...to think, one might say "Life is x." wherein x can be replaced with anything... because so long as you are dead...(not aware, at the least) there is nothing...

There would seem to be need for some verbal division that can be applied for distinguishing between needs that are one's you can't get around so long as you are living... and needs that are such only so long as desired...?
Flow is unconscious. It simply flows, interacting.
Life in its rudimentary form is need without consciousness.
A single-cell organism does not think, it simply reacts to sensations governed by a continuous need to sustain itself.
When multi-celled organisms emerge, specialization ensues.
Now some cells can be dedicated towards this task while others are dedicated towards others.
Now some cells can be dedicated towards directing the activities of other cells - agencies.

Now the organism begins to be conscious. the first thing it becomes conscious of is its own need or its own reaction or resistance to entropy. It is an ordering in the disordering, and it feels it as need. It's primary need is self-sustenance. When it possesses enough energies to satisfy this need the excess energies can be directed towards procreation and later on towards creation.

Need is nothing more than the organism becoming aware of its own resistance to entropy, as it is a resistance to it.
When it can easily handle this it is comfortable. When it cannot it is in pain, it is suffering.

When this organism eventually evolves the agency to direct its consciousness, first outwardly and then inwardly (self-consciousness) it directs consciousness towards an object/objective: a simplified, generalized abstraction of a phenomenon it interprets as being a "thing", an object, a goal, an ideal, an idea...a god.

So, self-consciousness is the sensation, the awareness, of consciousness. Consciousness is the sensation, the awareness, of existing. What is existing?
It is activity.
When its without direction, simple interactivity, it is unconscious, it is in Flux: chaos.
When it gains direction with this focus of its energies upon an object/objective, though it might be simply to feed itself, it is animated, it is willful...it senses this as need.
Need's object/objective is the desired, that which it wants or wishes for.

Abstract wrote:
I just defined my use of the word differently then what you just suggested... I am not distraut by things...I don't know honestly most words to try to describe it end up meaning one has attained all with regards to a particular thing... I recognize i have not attained all... in fact I consider that really one cannot attain all that they might want... my point is that i am fine with that... if I do not get what i want... or if I have to face the rest of my life living out side and digging in dumpsters for a living... I don't hold anxiety in regard to such... it does not bother me...If I have to live fighting a war constantly fighting to survive... it would not make me feel in a way that i would not be able to be comfortable feeling... apparently this is a state that there are not simple words such as "contentment" that can be used to simply describe...
You are not distraught because you are well taken care of.
Your basic survival needs, your primary needs, your needs having to do with self-maintenance, are easily taken care of. You take them for granted having never experienced a situation where they were in question.
You now have excess energies, due to your leisure time, and you direct them towards objects/objectives which are merely abstractions with no direct relevance to your well-being.

This is how philosophy, thinking, becomes detached from reality.
Now thinking has little personal relevance. There is no fear involved because there is no personal cost. thinking can now indulge in play.
This is what I describe in another thread as power. In this case it is a power derived through sheltering and not due to personal efforts. One simply is born within a privileged situation, and in return he must pay with work, loyalty, morality towards the system which provides him with the leisure and the safety to play.
Most turn to sports, sex...others with more complicated minds use thinking like they would candy.

Abstract wrote:
I thought that is what i just said... and that nonetheless you seem to be thinking that in certain areas I am not an outlier to that pattern...surely you think I think this indicates a desire to be seen as or to think of the self as unique... yet outliers are not uique... at the least they are rare, there is a difference. And I would not claim such rarity in all aspects of my self... yet rather it seems you are expecting me to be of a pattern because I seem to be exibiting certain qualities that are suggestive of fitting it...yet I don't... part of it is though that you are misunderstanding a bit of what i say... because you have expectations of the way I mean with some of the words I use... Perhaps contentment is one... which is honestly reasonable considering what perhaps most mean by it yet again i find that many use that such as i do... Perhaps I expected you to understand what I meant by context... perhaps my context was not best formed either...
All lie follows patterns.
Some rare.

Contentment is NOT an absence of need.
When you fill your stomach with food your need does not pass, it is constantly satiated, drawing from the sac of nutrients. Your mind becomes unconscious to this need, because it is no longer pressing. The mind is a tool for satisfying immediate needs. Later it evolves the capacity to project and prepare for the immediacy of certain needs, as they become a pattern it recognizes.

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



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:29 am

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
So perhaps you are suggesting that when we desire we need to fulfill that desire? When we no longer feel the need for it... we are no longer desireing it....?
No, our desire always changes, the need remains constant. Need dissipates, falls beneath our conscious awareness.
Desire alters. We desire that woman, then later we see another and we desire her. Even if we see the same women again she is not the same, so we desire a later manifestation of her.
But then we do not always desire life...so then how is anything needed if all those needs are hinged on the desire to live?


Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I just defined my use of the word differently then what you just suggested... I am not distraut by things...I don't know honestly most words to try to describe it end up meaning one has attained all with regards to a particular thing... I recognize i have not attained all... in fact I consider that really one cannot attain all that they might want... my point is that i am fine with that... if I do not get what i want... or if I have to face the rest of my life living out side and digging in dumpsters for a living... I don't hold anxiety in regard to such... it does not bother me...If I have to live fighting a war constantly fighting to survive... it would not make me feel in a way that i would not be able to be comfortable feeling... apparently this is a state that there are not simple words such as "contentment" that can be used to simply describe...
You are not distraught because you are well taken care of.
Your basic survival needs, your primary needs, your needs having to do with self-maintenance, are easily taken care of. You take them for granted having never experienced a situation where they were in question.
You now have excess energies, due to your leisure time, and you direct them towards objects/objectives which are merely abstractions with no direct relevance to your well-being.

This is how philosophy, thinking, becomes detached from reality.
Now thinking has little personal relevance. There is no fear involved because there is no personal cost. thinking can now indulge in play.
This is what I describe in another thread as power. In this case it is a power derived through sheltering and not due to personal efforts. One simply is born within a privileged situation, and in return he must pay with work, loyalty, morality towards the system which provides him with the leisure and the safety to play.
Most turn to sports, sex...others with more complicated minds use thinking like they would candy.
I don't know man... at this point I really don't know how to get across to you what I mean... your argument here is logical... however you are wrong about me if you think I have always been well taken care of and have not had my means of survival in question, at the moment i am doing good in that regard though...

I don't know...
how does one explain enjoying it when they are both crying because something fucked up just happened... and when they cry out of happiness?
basically what i mean in saying that things don't bother me is that they do not typically or to the degree as they do most effect me such as to prevent me from being able to continue living so long as I desire to...typically I don't associate with things such as to consider them negative or positive... rather I consider them experiences... and I consider experiences interesting...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
I thought that is what i just said... and that nonetheless you seem to be thinking that in certain areas I am not an outlier to that pattern...surely you think I think this indicates a desire to be seen as or to think of the self as unique... yet outliers are not uique... at the least they are rare, there is a difference. And I would not claim such rarity in all aspects of my self... yet rather it seems you are expecting me to be of a pattern because I seem to be exibiting certain qualities that are suggestive of fitting it...yet I don't... part of it is though that you are misunderstanding a bit of what i say... because you have expectations of the way I mean with some of the words I use... Perhaps contentment is one... which is honestly reasonable considering what perhaps most mean by it yet again i find that many use that such as i do... Perhaps I expected you to understand what I meant by context... perhaps my context was not best formed either...
All lie follows patterns.
Some rare.

Contentment is NOT an absence of need.
When you fill your stomach with food your need does not pass, it is constantly satiated, drawing from the sac of nutrients. Your mind becomes unconscious to this need, because it is no longer pressing. The mind is a tool for satisfying immediate needs. Later it evolves the capacity to project and prepare for the immediacy of certain needs, as they become a pattern it recognizes.
it depends on how you think about it. When you are full you are not currently in need of food... but you will be in the future... time is relevant...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:34 am

Without-music. I do indeed recognize in the OP much of Zizek, especially what he writes in his book on violence, which happens to be one of the ones I have been reading (his best so far I find "The Fragile Absolute"). I agree with the notion of suspending action as long as one can only act out of incompetence, in a clumsy will to compensate for ones perceived moral deptb. I think that this is the main point Zizek makes, that we should only act when we know. And since we do not yet know, we have to think.

I have two additions to make here. First: to think is to act. But you already know this.
Second: it is good to act without knowledge, if one does so embracing the uncertainty that is to say, without hypocricy ot stupidity, without holding to incomplete ideas of certainty. One may act very well on strange intuitions and arrive into new worlds. The sense of the innocent, becoming, the archetype of the Fool.

But Zizek draws his conclusion in a political context. He criticises those who make use of what Z perceives, as a Marxist, as the worlds error (capitalism, corporatism), to attend to the damages this error has done. He argues against incomplete and self-contradictory conceptions as a basis for action, and argues that more thought instead of action is required where conceptions of what is wrong / lacking, what needs to be corrected are not yet satisfactory. In short, he says that we have not arrived at a philosophy, from which we may act in the confidence that our acts have the tyoe of consequences we aim for them to have.

I think that he is right. As you know I have done a lot of thinking, and I think that I have arrived at a theory from which, in fact, we may act.


____________I wrote on ILP__________


WHAT HAS BEEN OVERCOME BY THE INVENTION OF VALUE-THEORY:
Nietsche wrote:
594 (1883-1888)


Science--this has been hitherto a way of putting an end to the complete confusion in which things exist, by hypotheses that "explain" everything--so it has come from the intellect's dislike of chaos.--This same dislike seizes me when I consider myself: I should like to form an image of the inner world too, by means of some schema, and thus triumph over intellectual confusion. Morality has been a simplification of this kind: it taught that men were known, familiar.--Now we have destroyed morality--we have again become completely obscure to ourselves! I know that I know nothing of myself. Physics proves to be a boon for the heart: science (as the way to knowledge) acquires a new charm after morality has been eliminated--and because it is here alone that we find consistency, we have to construct our life so as to preserve it. This yields a sort of practical reflection on the conditions of our existence as men of knowledge.

This problem has been solved; by understanding the atom as self-valuing, physics has become accessible to the heart.

595 (1884)

Our presuppositions: no God: no purpose: finite force. Let us guard against thinking out and prescribing the mode of thought necessary to lesser men!!

The lesser man wants to believe in objectivity, in determinism, in God, anything besides his own, acute valuation of himself and the world in his terms. Only strong subjects are capable of working with this theory.

596 (1886-1887)

No "moral education" of the human race: but an enforced schooling in [scientific] errors is needed, because "truth" disgusts and makes one sick of life--unless man is already irrevocably launched upon his path and has taken his honest insight upon himself with a tragic pride.

Truth is seen to be less ugly as it was once assumed --
since every being self-values, there is no possibility for an initial ugliness, only for an initial aesthetics.

Nietzsche, while being co-responsible for this theory, has been overcome. At least his weaknesses have been overcome.

597 (1886-1887)

The presupposition of scientific work: belief in the unity and perpetuity of scientific work, so the individual may work at any part, however small, confident that his work will not be in vain.

There is one great paralysis: to work in vain, to struggle in vain.


Again, a fundamental problem that has been overcome. "In vain", what does that mean? It means: not pertaining to objectivity. Since objectivity is now understood as derived from subjective valuation, the act of valuing (also: vision) is seen as the ground of being, and can not be "in vain" -- existence is no longer arbitrary, "outside oneself" -- no, it is our work!

In vain to perhaps to God - but not to us!

The accumulative epochs, in which force and means of power are discovered that the future will one day make use of; science an intermediary station, at which the more intermediary, more multifarious, more complicated natures find their most natural discharge and satisfaction--all those who should avoid action.

Yes, yes, and with us, this stage has passed! A more direct, less ambiguous, self-simplified nature is being created -- a type to dominate, a type in which action is justified, a type which can only be justified by action -- a types whose actions justify the world to itself.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:13 pm

Fixed: I've also been experimenting with Heidegger lately, with the thought that there is something unimaginably distinct about human beings, that they can attend to this distinction only in thinking. It is in thinking, through language, that Being reveals itself for man, unconceals itself if only for the briefest moment. Language achieves this clearing for Being, it is "the house of being" in Heidegger's words. It is into this clearing that we are thrown, in the sense that we are thrown into the world -- it is this very thrownness that we must learn to embrace to properly realize our potential. Man as a rational animal, as a being among other beings? This conception is not high enough. Certainly, we share affinities, commonalities, we are a being among others -- but we're so much more! In this very real sense, thinking is acting, it is acting to set us apart, not only from non-humans, but also from those who are unable to draw Being forth from its concealment -- in a word: herd, rabble. In Heidegger's language, the attending to Being is "care" -- if we "care" for Being, then we must think, for thinking is always of Being, in the double-genitive sense. There are those not only unable to care, but also unworthy. To this extent, thought, the very act of thinking itself, draws in its wake the pathos of distance!

As a side-note: my OP was essentially a re-writing of a few excerpts from Zizek's Violence, a book that massively appealed to me at the time of my creating this thread. It's a shame the thread has gone where it has, however. I have no time for Schopenhauer's pessimistic metaphysics, for philosophy birthed forth out of lack, and so my eyes have glazed over the bulk of posts here.

On a more significant note: I think this 'acting without knowledge' lies at the core of what we are capable of, it is a call from outside the gates of rationality -- I sense in you great potential to answer this call, and I'm sure you've already done so successfully. But to make of this a philosophy, that is your task now. I also find rather compelling your theory of valuation and its ability to overcome (perhaps: sublate, in the Hegelian sense?) Nietzsche's 'weaknesses.' Anyway, I'm short on time this day. May our interactions on this forum be fruitful. I also want that you'll acquaint yourself with Satyr -- I'm interested in what will bear itself out from such engagements.

-w/m
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:45 pm

Abstract wrote:
But then we do not always desire life...so then how is anything needed if all those needs are hinged on the desire to live?
No, the need is for the absent, life is a means towards it.
When you need you lack. It is this absence in you - you as a manifestation of existence - which you seek to fulfill.
Life is an product of the interactions, the Flux, gaining a more efficient method of resisting entropy and then seeking first its own preservation and then developing to a level where it seeks its own completion.
In essence the desire to fulfill one's self, to become a Being, to complete one's self exposes a deep dissatisfaction, a resentment, with fluidity.
Man resents an existence where his ephemeral and his continuation hinges on need/suffering. He projects ideals hoping to achieve one of them.

Coming to terms with life is coming to terms with the factors which make life possible.
This, in sexual terms, is the control of the masculine spirit on man over his feminine spirit.
A control, a dominance, not a rejection, or a hatred or a dismissal.

[quote="Abstract"I don't know man... at this point I really don't know how to get across to you what I mean... your argument here is logical... however you are wrong about me if you think I have always been well taken care of and have not had my means of survival in question, at the moment i am doing good in that regard though...[/quote]The comment was directed towards western, modern, man in general and not specifically only to you.

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



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:33 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
But then we do not always desire life...so then how is anything needed if all those needs are hinged on the desire to live?
No, the need is for the absent, life is a means towards it.
When you need you lack. It is this absence in you - you as a manifestation of existence - which you seek to fulfill.
Life is an product of the interactions, the Flux, gaining a more efficient method of resisting entropy and then seeking first its own preservation and then developing to a level where it seeks its own completion.
In essence the desire to fulfill one's self, to become a Being, to complete one's self exposes a deep dissatisfaction, a resentment, with fluidity.
Man resents an existence where his ephemeral and his continuation hinges on need/suffering. He projects ideals hoping to achieve one of them.

Coming to terms with life is coming to terms with the factors which make life possible.
This, in sexual terms, is the control of the masculine spirit on man over his feminine spirit.
A control, a dominance, not a rejection, or a hatred or a dismissal.
That is an interesting concept... do you mean to say you think that in that one desires to be complete they are desiring essentially to be non-existent? thus all life is driving towards being non-existent? Yet honestly I do not desire to be complete... rather I desire to be tortured by the journey... and yet it is not torture... yet it will become such eventually perhaps...do not all motives corrupt? it seems much of man's suffering is created by the complexity it causes with all its abstractions and creations...maybe we were better off as animals... when we didn't care so much...when we just lived...it wasn't pain because we were used to it maybe...

Satyr wrote:

[quote="Abstract"I don't know man... at this point I really don't know how to get across to you what I mean... your argument here is logical... however you are wrong about me if you think I have always been well taken care of and have not had my means of survival in question, at the moment i am doing good in that regard though...
The comment was directed towards western, modern, man in general and not specifically only to you. [/quote] That is definitely true concerning modern man... they are weak... and they will die when they run out of their sources for electricity... many of them... unless they get to space in time... but seems to me shit is going to start running our before then...unless maybe they can sufficiently maintain their consumptive current, maybe solar power can actually do it...personally I think it will not provide as much... especially concerning the limitations on capacity for solar panels to be made given low non-renewable resources... but who knows maybe they will figure to solarize more quickly...maybe that will work... honestly I tend to think we would be better off sitting in trees eating bananas...I almost hope...

sorry I am stoned...
do you smoke satyr...
or do you feel it weakens you?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:49 pm

I never took satyr to be an advocate for the denial of the flesh
Somebody, quickly, give this man a drrink.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:50 pm

phoneutria wrote:
I never took satyr to be an advocate for the denial of the flesh
Somebody, quickly, give this man a drink.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:09 pm

Abstract wrote:
That is an interesting concept... do you mean to say you think that in that one desires to be complete they are desiring essentially to be non-existent?
I mean to say that when a consciousness first awakens to reality, to the reality of its own condition, nihilism is the first response.
The world is essentially inhospitable to life, and this is a shock to the awakening mind.

Abstract wrote:
thus all life is driving towards being non-existent?
First thing you should do is separate the concept of life from the concept of existence.
Life is a manifestation of existence, a rare one...but not all existence is alive.

If you study Nirvana, Paradise, the notion of the end of rebirth, the concept of a God, a final end, it is all quintessentially a declaration against the world as it is.

Abstract wrote:
Yet honestly I do not desire to be complete... rather I desire to be tortured by the journey... and yet it is not torture... yet it will become such eventually perhaps...do not all motives corrupt?
The goal is to habituate one's self with need/suffering to a degree where one can enjoy existence for a short while.

Abstract wrote:
it seems much of man's suffering is created by the complexity it causes with all its abstractions and creations...maybe we were better off as animals... when we didn't care so much...when we just lived...it wasn't pain because we were used to it maybe...
Desires, wants, can be manufactured.
First because the absence can be projected to be just about anything. The desired can merely be what is marketed as that which promises to end need/suffering once and for all.
Second, because man's primary needs can be attached to any abstraction, due to the previous, and they can be connected to an ideal and idea.

For instance the desire for a house can be founded on the promise of satiating one or more primary needs.

Sex is a later development and so this need is not primary. It's power is dependent on the paroxysms hormonal inebriation produces.
Reason goes out the door when the mind is taken over by the sexual drive.
Females being sexual creatures are, for this reason, very irrational...or more irrational than an average male.

This is why the sexual need can usurp all other needs, turning the organism suicidal or making the organism do things it would not normally do if its own survival and well-being were considered rationally.

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



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:33 pm

Satyr wrote:
Abstract wrote:
That is an interesting concept... do you mean to say you think that in that one desires to be complete they are desiring essentially to be non-existent?
I mean to say that when a consciousness first awakens to reality, to the reality of its own condition, nihilism is the first response.
The world is essentially inhospitable to life, and this is a shock to the awakening mind.
Yes. nihilism seems to result in a destruction of sensitivity resulting in a prolonged numbness that results in a craving for what ever there is...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
thus all life is driving towards being non-existent?
First thing you should do is separate the concept of life from the concept of existence.
Life is a manifestation of existence, a rare one...but not all existence is alive.

If you study Nirvana, Paradise, the notion of the end of rebirth, the concept of a God, a final end, it is all quintessentially a declaration against the world as it is.
perhaps...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
Yet honestly I do not desire to be complete... rather I desire to be tortured by the journey... and yet it is not torture... yet it will become such eventually perhaps...do not all motives corrupt?
The goal is to habituate one's self with need/suffering to a degree where one can enjoy existence for a short while.
I don't know that it is necessary to consider it short...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:
it seems much of man's suffering is created by the complexity it causes with all its abstractions and creations...maybe we were better off as animals... when we didn't care so much...when we just lived...it wasn't pain because we were used to it maybe...
Desires, wants, can be manufactured.
First because the absence can be projected to be just about anything. The desired can merely be what is marketed as that which promises to end need/suffering once and for all.
Second, because man's primary needs can be attached to any abstraction, due to the previous, and they can be connected to an ideal and idea.

For instance the desire for a house can be founded on the promise of satiating one or more primary needs.

Sex is a later development and so this need is not primary. It's power is dependent on the paroxysms hormonal inebriation produces.
Reason goes out the door when the mind is taken over by the sexual drive.
Females being sexual creatures are, for this reason, very irrational...or more irrational than an average male.
I don't think women are any more sexual then men... the irrational control that sexual drive can have does not have to extend as deep into one's life as they typically let it...

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:10 pm

without-music wrote:
Fixed: I've also been experimenting with Heidegger lately, with the thought that there is something unimaginably distinct about human beings, that they can attend to this distinction only in thinking. It is in thinking, through language, that Being reveals itself for man, unconceals itself if only for the briefest moment. Language achieves this clearing for Being, it is "the house of being" in Heidegger's words. It is into this clearing that we are thrown, in the sense that we are thrown into the world -- it is this very thrownness that we must learn to embrace to properly realize our potential.

Pan -- incantations, spells, poetry -- language can be used to attain clarity of sense, and to the contrary, consistency of logic. I am not sure to which, if any of the two, you are referring. Please elaborate on this "house of being", it is intriguing but not yet clear.

Quote :
Man as a rational animal, as a being among other beings? This conception is not high enough. Certainly, we share affinities, commonalities, we are a being among others -- but we're so much more! In this very real sense, thinking is acting, it is acting to set us apart, not only from non-humans, but also from those who are unable to draw Being forth from its concealment -- in a word: herd, rabble.
I like this. But what sets us apart is a certain type of thinking. "We have not yet begun to think" - Heidegger was aware that thought carries more potential than logic, reason, rational conception -- it is a direct experience of the world. I might disagree with him that language is the key here -- except if he means symbolism and incantation, the sensual facet of language on which poetry and occultism rely.

I have discovered that to learn, by tongue, throat, heart and gut, a noble old language, does more to increase the awareness of this "thrownness" than any other thing. It is as being reborn into the world, re-thrown, but consciously.

Quote :
In Heidegger's language, the attending to Being is "care" -- if we "care" for Being, then we must think, for thinking is always of Being, in the double-genitive sense. There are those not only unable to care, but also unworthy. To this extent, thought, the very act of thinking itself, draws in its wake the pathos of distance!
And this goes both ways -- when we begin to think as Heidegger intends, no person "in his right mind" will follow. Indeed, thinking as being, being as thinking, we have to leave the faith in derivative logic behind for this. For me this has never been difficult. I see it seems impossible, frightening, crazy, unimaginable to most.

Quote :
As a side-note: my OP was essentially a re-writing of a few excerpts from Zizek's Violence, a book that massively appealed to me at the time of my creating this thread. It's a shame the thread has gone where it has, however. I have no time for Schopenhauer's pessimistic metaphysics, for philosophy birthed forth out of lack, and so my eyes have glazed over the bulk of posts here.
Some people I admire admire Schopenhauer. That is as close I come to admiring him. I see little of worth in his philosophy.

Quote :
On a more significant note: I think this 'acting without knowledge' lies at the core of what we are capable of, it is a call from outside the gates of rationality -- I sense in you great potential to answer this call, and I'm sure you've already done so successfully. But to make of this a philosophy, that is your task now.
I have to think about this. Rather, it seems to me that what I have discovered / uncovered in this way contributes to science. But it has disrobed my soul to myself, and with that enabled the unobstructed vision of valuing. --

Quote :
I also find rather compelling your theory of valuation and its ability to overcome (perhaps: sublate, in the Hegelian sense?) Nietzsche's 'weaknesses.'
It simply renders his pessimism -- unnecessary. It makes pessimistic philosophy very difficult to justify. One would have to make an effort to be pessimistic. But I have yet to produce a full treatise on this thought.

Quote :
Anyway, I'm short on time this day. May our interactions on this forum be fruitful. I also want that you'll acquaint yourself with Satyr -- I'm interested in what will bear itself out from such engagements.
It seems that this board was recently considered to be dead. It is alive now.

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:35 pm

Abstract wrote:
Yes. nihilism seems to result in a destruction of sensitivity resulting in a prolonged numbness that results in a craving for what ever there is...
Nihilism is the first shock of awakening to an indifferent and meaningless existence.
A child waking up to a cold world.


Abstract wrote:
I don't think women are any more sexual then men... the irrational control that sexual drive can have does not have to extend as deep into one's life as they typically let it...
On this point you should read Weininger.
The female is nature personified. She is reproduction without purpose.
Pure sexuality.

In a feminized world eros takes over, all becomes sex.
See Bonobos.
All stresses resolved in copulation.

A woman body and soul is all sex. She talks of relationships, is only interested in what relates to procreation and social networking.
She can have sex any time she wants,e experiencing multiple orgasms. Her entire body is a sex organ, with her vagina being the access point.

A man's sexuality, by comparison, is limited and centered around one, or a few others, erogenous zones. Despite his bragging he is not as sexually potent as a female is.
Once done, he must rest. He is satiated.


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



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:23 pm

Poetry, in every sense of the term. For me, at least. I think Heidegger meant something more general -- but I have never hesitated to revise what I think needs revision.

A full treatise would be nice, but that might just be the academic in me speaking. As for your question in another thread concerning influence, I still have to side with academia. There is much room for ideas to gain momentum in the academy, and we currently find ourselves in a time pregnant with potential for this. From the academy to the wider public, is my road.

On a side-note: I would very much like to learn some German. Is there any advise you can offer me, any recommended place I start?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:36 pm

Satyr wrote:



Abstract wrote:
I don't think women are any more sexual then men... the irrational control that sexual drive can have does not have to extend as deep into one's life as they typically let it...
On this point you should read Weininger.
The female is nature personified. She is reproduction without purpose.
Pure sexuality.

In a feminized world eros takes over, all becomes sex.
See Bonobos.
All stresses resolved in copulation.

A woman body and soul is all sex. She talks of relationships, is only interested in what relates to procreation and social networking.
She can have sex any time she wants,e experiencing multiple orgasms. Her entire body is a sex organ, with her vagina being the access point.

A man's sexuality, by comparison, is limited and centered around one, or a few others, erogenous zones. Despite his bragging he is not as sexually potent as a female is.
Once done, he must rest. He is satiated.


I still think the primary goal is survival and sex is a means to that end... women do and have provided other means of aid to our survival other then those centered around the sexual.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:29 pm

without-music wrote:
Poetry, in every sense of the term. For me, at least. I think Heidegger meant something more general -- but I have never hesitated to revise what I think needs revision.

A full treatise would be nice, but that might just be the academic in me speaking. As for your question in another thread concerning influence, I still have to side with academia. There is much room for ideas to gain momentum in the academy, and we currently find ourselves in a time pregnant with potential for this. From the academy to the wider public, is my road.
I was expecting nothing less. This is good if we are to cooperate successfully. It is of no use to share all context and skills.

Quote :
On a side-note: I would very much like to learn some German. Is there any advise you can offer me, any recommended place I start?
I would advise picking up different sources simultaneously, ranging from the complicated to the simple, but all speaking to your taste. I advise choosing a book by Nietzsche in German and read an aphorism aloud in German, then read it in English and then aloud again in German. And listen to German music with english subtitles, such as here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy7S2FIMcHQ
At the same time you should of course keep a grammar page open, anything factual and contextless, "unbiased" there, to avoid the "what is your name?" and "where do you live?" thread of learning. It results in debility, it obscures, disables the spirit of that tongue. Use art. Make it as hard and beautiful as you can in the beginning.


Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:06 pm

I appreciate the advice, FC. I was actually considering a trip to Germany this year, to work some sort of pre-arranged job there for a couple months, and familiarize myself with the language before coming back home to grad school applications. I want to immerse myself in the world of a new language, rather than sit disconnected from it in a study hall, with its meaningless phrases drawn out of some dusty book for me.
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1577
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:47 pm

without-music wrote:
I appreciate the advice, FC. I was actually considering a trip to Germany this year, to work some sort of pre-arranged job there for a couple months, and familiarize myself with the language before coming back home to grad school applications. I want to immerse myself in the world of a new language, rather than sit disconnected from it in a study hall, with its meaningless phrases drawn out of some dusty book for me.

My experience with learning a language (Japanese) is to visit a private tutor. This way you end up with a good friend who speaks the language and has contacts in the country itself should you ever go there.

Also, one-to-one teaching is advantageous when it comes to any questions you might have with what your studying. If there's some part of the grammar or something you don't get having someone to explain it to you, personally, is much better. With a book or tapes you won't have that and in a class you might struggle to get the attention you need.

Use the language at every oppurtunity, especially with native speakers. They will correct you more readily and the practice will help.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Against action. Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:52 pm

I second the use of music. It really helps you make the words flow. Music was essential to me when learning English.
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 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
 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: