Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Open Challenge

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:18 pm

That was very good.
I'll come back in the evening with my inane comments.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:27 pm

Satyr wrote:

the female is the representation of nature, that which is earthly; she is sex personified, as Weininger might have said it.

That's what my dentist Dr. Weiner said when he saw my legs.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:43 pm

Poison IV wrote:


What key word? What question? Did I forget my proper punctuation? (Never)

The question was " What makes emotion & sensation unrelated?"
I misinterpreted it as implying that emotion and sensations are the same. I have corrected my mistake and replied by saying that they are not unrelated.
Are you with me now?

Quote :

No, and so in order for the conversation to drift away from emotion into sensation they must absolutely be unrelated.

I disagree. I can have an extensive conversation about clouds without ever mentioning rain
Scope, love, scope.

Quote :

Senses are sensations now? Yeesh.

What can you possibly gain by acting obtuse? You are not obtuse, Iv.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:09 pm

phoneutria wrote:

The question was " What makes emotion & sensation unrelated?"
I misinterpreted it as implying that emotion and sensations are the same. I have corrected my mistake and replied by saying that they are not unrelated.
Are you with me now?

No, you are, and always will be, above me
... like an Aphrodite.

Quote :

I disagree. I can have an extensive conversation about clouds without ever mentioning rain
Scope, love, scope.

Chances, love, chances and chances come from relation. The chance that you will run into talking about rain in a conversation about clouds is pretty high, dontcha think?

And the chance that it's going to rain tomorrow is about 30%.

Quote :


What can you possibly gain by acting obtuse? You are not obtuse, Iv.

You're right, I'm acute.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:12 pm

No, you are a cute.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:32 pm

Satyr wrote:
I begin with the premise that sensations preceded emotions, just as consciousness preceded self-consciousness.

From this sensation of otherness emerges this automatic Response to sensation, or to sensual stimuli.
This is the beginning of emotion.

I've stated that for me fear must be the first emotion; the mother of all emotions.
All other emotions are degrees of it or reactions to it or combinations of both.

In this sense I understand love as being a much later development, one necessitated by the demands and mechanics of heterosexual reproduction and the alter developing, from it, social behavior.
It is how fear and all emotions that had evolved form it that far could be overcome.

This is why love is held in such high regards...it is firstly a survival tool and secondly a way of tolerating (bonding) with others on a more efficient level.

I would say love begins with eros, a primal form of it, related to the coitus and directly linked to lust.
Lust is, itself, a sophistication of the hunger drive.

For this reason I place agape above all other forms of this emotional overcoming of fear.
Agape is love made conscious...reaching the level of rational love or comradeship founded on common interests.
Eros is primitive, and so very feminine,a s the female is the representation of nature, that which is earthly; she is sex personified, as Weininger might have said it.

Both fear and love, as well as anger and contentment, are hormone mediated emotions, driven by the reptilian brain. They are by design thoughtless. The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process.

I am more inclined to relate agape to an entirely instinctive and often counter intuitive emotion. Something like the love of a parent for a child.

I think what you call agape is more apropriately named pragma.

But then, who am I to instruct you in Greek Smile
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:45 pm

This is sad.

A reptile feels on love....but you are free to think that it does.
Emotions like love are later developments and they are found only in species that must, as a matter of survival, interact with their own kind or even cooperate with their own kind.
We can, on the other hand, say that a reptile might feel a rudimentary form of fear, or some similar anxiety which is automatic and aids it in the fight/flight mechanism.

Pragma, sweetie, is a thing.

You see, babe, for me life, existence, reality just doesn't spring out of nothing....it is not contingent upon your or my opinion, reversely our existence is contingent upon reality, the world...things, phenomena, just do not happen, they are based on previous phenomena.
For instance, liberal girly, gender is not a human invention, nor is it totally without merit.

I know mommy and daddy might have told you so or the morons you hang out with might be convinced that men invented gender, but this is not so.
Gender, sweets, is an adaptation of sexual roles wihtin a socioeconomic context.
Sexual roles, like sex, were not invented by bad men to control innocent, fragile, simple little girls and their wet and wild pussies.

Sex is a survival tool and sexual roles are specialized forms of it. Gender is how men apply these roles within their particular social structures...this is where the control over the pussies comes in.
Men give them symbols they dictate morals and force upon them behavior but they do not invent what they are founded on.

Men are like dam builders. They do not invent the river or that the river flows downwards, they simply take advantage of this, redirect it, manipulate it.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:34 am

Oh Satyr darling I am not talking about reptiles.
Do me a kind favor and google reptilian brain or the R complex. A brief reading should clear up the confusion.

Other than that, I cannot find much in your post I disagree with. All of these wonderfully intricate mechanisms deffinitely rose from need, including agape and pragmatism.

As to the example given, I see your attempt to get a rise out of me, and I raise you with I am not a feminist and therefor I don't give a fuck Smile
There is obviously a long discussion to be had on what regards sexual confusion of physical bodies (notice the use of sexual and not gender), and the different but yet related subject of gender confusion, which is a thing of the mind.
As scientific interest, I have read many instances in which it was clinically impossible to determine a person's sex, and other cases, for example, when a baby was born with seemingly male genitalia and was brought up as a boy, only to find out he was a woman when he got his menses.
Unfortunately our bodies were not designed to be perfect by an intelligent designer. They are full of flaws and as a work in progress, there is a lot of variation to account for. When it comes to biology, there is deffinitely a grey area to be explored.

Now the mind portion of it, the gender part, I can do nothing but speculate. I know you love to speculate, yourself. I have a different prefference.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:21 pm

She reads David Icke, Satyr....
David. Icke.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:30 pm

I have reas Icke, but I <3 Carl Sagan forever. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:20 pm

Besides, I could just as easily have used the term basal ganglia. I jused reptilian brain because I remembered it first.
Let's not get distracted here.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:16 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Oh Satyr darling I am not talking about reptiles.
Do me a kind favor and google reptilian brain or the R complex. A brief reading should clear up the confusion.

Oh, honey-bunny, you may think you are above it all, and that you've surpassed your past, being all modern and aware and intelligent as you are, but this is not the case.

The past, sweets, is you. Surpassing it, overcoming it is a form of self-hatred and self-denial...and I'm talking about more than you popping in your diaper and how you used to suck cock in parking-lot past.
The past can only be dealt with....as it manifests in you it can only be controlled. That you and your ilk deny its relevance makes you all the more products of its presence.
It's ironic but it is those that deny nature, as in human nature, who are the ones whoa re the easiest to define using its tenents.

phoneutria wrote:
She reads David Icke, Satyr....
David. Icke.
Probably...but we all have our issues, no?
What does it matter?

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:17 pm

I don't mean to say that we are not reated to reptiles, or that we have no connections with our distant evolutionary ancestors.

I mean to explain that it is pointless to say that reptiles don't feel love in a conversation that isn't about reptiles at all.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:37 pm

phoneutria wrote:
I don't mean to say that we are not reated to reptiles, or that we have no connections with our distant evolutionary ancestors.

I mean to explain that it is pointless to say that reptiles don't feel love in a conversation that isn't about reptiles at all.
I see the problem with you.

You focus on the present and dismiss the past as irrelevant, when it is the past that determines the present and it is by knowing and understand the past that the present becomes comprehensible.

Maybe, just maybe, there is nothing trivial about anything that contributed to the apparent, and appearance, the phenomenon, the presence.

It's the same thing you did with the Negro issue.
For you the appearance is superficial, unimportant, or accidental. For you the apst palys no part in the apparant and if it does it is so minute or insignificant that you don't even wisht o consider the implications...primarily because they insult you and scare you.

But this is not only your problem, because you are typical...this is modernity on display. And you are a product of modernity so you reflect its methods and principles and motives.
All you want to do is enjoy the present; immerse yourself in sensation and emotion.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:33 pm

Ok, explain to me how that is relevant at all to the conversation we were having before you got confuse with my use of "reptilian brain" to mean "basal ganglia".
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:36 pm

Alternatively, you can point out the exact sentence in which I demonstrated that I wish to ignore the past.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:07 pm

phoneutria wrote:
I don't mean to say that we are not reated to reptiles, or that we have no connections with our distant evolutionary ancestors.

I mean to explain that it is pointless to say that reptiles don't feel love in a conversation that isn't about reptiles at all.
When speaking about man you speak of everything in his environment and in his past.

If some reptilian ancestor resides there then it is always part of the conversation.

The relevance, sweets, is in that this ancestor which may or may have no resembled the reptile but must have had many of the same traits could not and did not have emotions as we experience them. To think otherwise is an equalization which would then mean that an amoeba could also be thought of as possessing feelings.

Once this is established then one can explore how and why emotions evolved and from where they evolve and for what reason.
If not then we can say God is Love and love is transcendental whereas hate is evil and a hindrance to human salvation.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Understood. But I say something about humans, and you reply with "reptiles feel no love". Can't you tell that that answer makes no sense?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:12 pm

What did you say about humans sweets?

And what color are your panties? Twisted Evil

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:20 pm

I said:

"Both fear and love, as well as anger and contentment, are hormone mediated emotions, driven by the basal ganglia. They are by design thoughtless. The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process"

And I'm not wearing any.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:27 pm

phoneutria wrote:
I said:
"Both fear and love, as well as anger and contentment, are hormone mediated emotions, driven by the basal ganglia. They are by design thoughtless. The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process"
Is that what you said/
Then we are in agreement.

I must have misunderstood or lost myself in....

phoneutria wrote:
And I'm not wearing any.
Mmmmmmm, always prepared, my dear, always prepared.
I hope the air does not dry up your skin.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:30 pm

Oh for fucks sake.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:46 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Oh for fucks sake.
Always.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:39 am

I have spent the entire day trying to explain to you how you had missunderstood me. Now if you bring up again all that nonsense about plan c and how if I say that I'm bored it's just a part of my ploy, I am going to have a fucking aneurism.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:40 am

phoneutria wrote:
Both fear and love, as well as anger and contentment, are hormone mediated emotions, driven by the reptilian brain. They are by design thoughtless. The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process.
So are we to understand that the affections you have for your subhuman grandmother are the result of a reptilian attraction... feelings which, according to you, are without thought behind them?

Or are you simply trying to mask your irrational nature with this comment?

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:41 am

No, you are to understand that despite the conscious awareness of my love for my subhuman grandmother, that emotion is entirely organic.

Nice troll there, btw, amateur.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:17 am

BTW I noticed you probably forgot to read the last sentence there. Gotta read things more carefully before hitting reply. Really helps avoiding making an ass of yourself. Just a pro tip, hope it helps. Cheers!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:28 am

At least you've admitted that your love for your grandmother is minus reason.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:36 am

Satyr > Yes, but I cannot ascribe to the idea of a Christian state, the Vatican. Each religion has its own spirit.

Yes, of course. What I am trying to point out is two kinds of decadence;
One, is the Spenglerian view that a culture organically grows into a civilization that organically loses its drive and withers away and dies.
Two, is, the decadence that is brought-upon like a contagion spreading to the healthy parts. 'Did Rome fall or was the falling Rome pushed also?' Did it decline naturally or was it assisted and hastened to its 'decline' from its natural organic pace?
Lack of resources, lagging military discipline, drained by barbaric invasions, etc. etc. are natural signs of an organic decline; but Xt. didn't fight Rome, it subverted it. This is what I understand Nietzsche and Heisman to mean... Xt. could triumph and 'stand' as the Form of an inverted pyramid 'because' Rome didn't decline - Xt. 'stood' by modelling itself on 'thriving' Roman structures and organization, when it had no forms of its own.
For this reason, Nietzsche called the Xt. Church the "last construction of the Romans". Considering that the Church was the exact opposite of everything Christ stood for - anti-state, political structures of any form, etc.; Pauline Xt. was essentially an inverted replica of Roman genius. And even in what 'appears' to be its most waning period, as if its Xt. that triumphed, he remarks;
"When the "masters" could also become Christians. - ...it lies in the instinct of the rulers to patronize and applaud the virtues that make their subjects useful and submissive. ...Submission of the master races to Christianity is essentially the consequence of the insight that Christianity is a herd religion, that it teaches obedience: in short, that Christians are easier to rule than non-Christians." [WTP, 216], and,
“The thesis of Charles Maurras is also ours: pagan Rome had "created" [emphasis in original] Catholicism as a system of order in opposition to Christian anarchy." [Evola, Heathen Imperialism]
From a Machiavellian view, Borgia as 'Pope' was one step short of restoring Rome as a pagan Imperium.
This also explains why the NS regime didn't receive Spengler too well and vice-versa. Imagine a Spengler telling people that Rome lived great, decayed and died naturally!, when the NS were at pains to show how Rome and Germany were being inverted.

Satyr > For me the virtue of knowing yourself is not something mystical.
When I say essence I mean your spirit as this has been determined by your past. To know yourself is to know your past...but to know something you must accept it.

Understand and agree. But let me point out how Evola's notion of the "mystical" Was to denote the sacred connect with the past!
"Transcendence as known to the Civis Romanus is no escape from the Contingent, nor is it submissiveness to a God to which he refers to only nominally or symbolically as a being per se, but is in reality, a point of spiritual force one reaches, not by prayer, but by Will, and which then finds expression upon the existential plane in the form of consequential acts of realization." [Preface to Evola's Revolutionary Force of Rome]

To take one example, the Roman Fides; which started as "devotion" to the entire past and the gods of its past, its ancestors, became expanded, into fidelity of a citizen to his state, and finally inverted by Xt. into devotion to one's neighbours:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or,
"in ancient Latin, 'pietas' belonged to the domain of sacredness, it designated the particular relationship which the Roman had with divinities in the first place, then with other realities connected with the world of Tradition, including the State itself. Towards gods, it was an attitude made of calm and worthy worship : a feeling of belonging and, at the same time, of respect, of gratefulness, as well as of duty and of adherence, as a development of the feeling aroused by the severe figure of the 'pater familias' (hence the 'pietas familias'). (...) pietas could also manifest itself in the political field : 'pietas in patriam' meant fidelity and duty towards the State and the fatherland. In certain cases, the word could also mean 'justitia'. Those who do not know 'pietas' is the unjust, almost the impious, those who do not know where their place." [Evola, 'L'arco e la clava] --- inverted into Xt. "piety" for Christ, etc.

Or, the inversion of Roman Chivalry and Charity in Euergetism to Xt. Grace;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Point being, it is with (inversion of such) Roman "spirituality", Xt. was able to prevail, to "stand".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Satyr > ...being male is being another female.

Evola and Rosenberg [Myth of 20th century] too, emphasized an inversion here; the rise of Feminism to the Aristotlean theories of positing the Family as the basic unit of the State, as opposed to the Warrior-clans and the Mannerbunde as the foundation of the State! [Not looked at elaborately in your thesis]. Ch.2 is an interesting one.
Of course while Rosenberg was only concerned with the rise of Feminism, you speak of Feminization. He was talking from the perspective of Feminism vs. the State; you point out that now Feminism is a property, representation, and principal means 'of' the State to preserve itself.

Satyr > But there is no contradiction in my views, as he has not exposed any. He only attacks my motives and character.

Yes, you have already repeated your stand many times on the board - against the kind of nurture exceeding the natural reality.

Satyr > You must forgive this child...he lives in a modern box, where history is linearly ascending and the past has not merely altered states but has been cleaned off the surface of our minds. The thing about these creatures that call themselves human is that they've substituted knowledge for wisdom, and words for spirit, and that the stirring in their heart that keeps them restless is something which they cannot explain, finding objects and objectives to deal with it.

Yes, I see it.
Eyes claims he's no Xt. but there's something so Xt. like about the way he tries to pick the 'good' parts that offer him an advantage to get by in this world and dismiss the rest as useless to him... his way of philosophy is like sewing a quilt. His study and examination and seeking of knowledge, exploring, have for end aims, a blanket he can use to keep out the world and the cold and all that is disturbing... what a distance of worlds! His hypocritic morality suits him. He's got bouts of energy but I doubt his self-fixation will let him grow.

Eyes > In many ways, Greece and Rome constitued a single nation. Metaphysically speaking, Greece was the heart and soul of the country, Rome the body. The Romans adopted their art and literature, their mythology, their philosophical traditions- namely stoicism, epicureanism, and skepticism. They pragmatized Greek culture and spirituality. Rome was less interesting and less dynamic because their state was indistinguishable and inseperable from their philosophy and their religion. This separation between philosophy, religion and state, is what made Greek culture more diverse, more mature and more logical, rational, because rival schools had to fight for dominance and supremacy, via logic and reason, where as in Rome, there was more of a monopoly.

Yes, you are right, but our ideas of individuality differ. We can look at culture and culture-extending-civilization as a centrifugal and centripetal dynamic. To me, the "shape-forming" pagan Roman Will, weaving a unity of such multifarious diversity reveals more Inner spiritual dynamic and fluidity. To move with the enormous 'Individuality' of an Atlas shouldering the whole past, as one spiritualized unit shows more Mobility. Lets note an important point here.
A beautiful Culture emerges only when it has for its goal, Not the simultaneous development of all kinds of talents, but in the correct "proportion" of these developments that lends to a unity of style. If Greek Culture was about the production and flowering of beautiful souls, Rome was about giving it proportion and this naturally means subordination, 'civilizing', and intolerance of some bolder, free-spirited elements. Similarly, a well-turned out human being is one who has let his talents, strengths and weaknesses develop in the correct proportion to each other. And that is why, I cannot see America as the new Rome - Rome was fluid, America is a petrifaction owing to the disproportionate development and encouragement of all sorts of talents altogether.

Eyes > First of all, just who the hell do you think you are?

A guest for a few days. I am here to honour my debt to this board, and not just pay it off. I thank every member and pay my respects. As it goes here, the lambs are silently roasting, spring is in the air, but I'm not here for the food or learning how to cook, and the banter, but 'am here for the music and to face the music... am just All-ears!
Every topic here is thoroughly interesting, and I could drown in it for hours, but I'm not profound, Human and Humble enough to do full justice to each; am here to take/make notes wherever I can.

Eyes > This isn't ancient Rome, dear, last I checked, this is 21st century North America, the home of Denis Leary and Albert Fish, there is no aristocracy anymore, there are no clans and tribes, I'm not talking about medieval Scotland and Ireland, I'm talking about the land the English, Irish and Scotish built on the backs of niggers and natives, this isn't some history book, this is the modern world.

Read again.You're missing the point; being, that you claim your modern individuality is the most free-est as compared to the individuality of your ancestors is a symptom of your decadence. That you identify with the times, taking the slave-owning Anglos. as the point of departure of your heritage, shows the extent of your digestive/integrative power. The instinct which cannot take anything in too deeply, the entire organic growth of the past, of its own heredity, the idea that one can be something other than what one is by picking and choosing what suits it, is an atrophing of the form - only a "semblance" of a unity, of a free unit. Just like a body with an altered organ becomes degenerate, and a degenerate society cannot have any kind of solidarity,, the one who affirms this now, and that another in alter-ation, cannot 'stand'- have self-solidarity. He can only oscillate between positions, no growth, no vitality - no "luck", no fatedness. His individuality and his "freedom" is a Resignation to the times, Serving the moment, whatever preserves him, a slave to Fate...
One appreciates why one of the names given by the ancients to the Spirit and the Soul attached to a 'clannish' 'Individual' was thus called "Chance" or "Luck" [hamingja] as if it were his Second Body... I'll leave you to meditate on frith now.

Eyes > Secondly, I don't want to be part of a clan or a tribe or a gang,

Here you go; its not a "I don't want to be", rather "I can/cannot afford to be"... its not a question of a choice, but a pre-determined capacity. Mustn't the one who is capable of renouncing something first possess something to renounce?

Eyes > not merely because I like being comfortabe, though there is that too, but because I want to preserve my individuality and my freedom.

You "cling" to it, because your 'individuality' is not Self-ed - so, what freedom?

Eyes > I don't want to have to compete with others, for ideals that may not be my own, for things I may not want or need, I compete on my own terms, I have no loyalties, I make few commitments. If people and circumstances change, I change,

Meaning you collapse into 'poses', no self-firmness... are you not merely a Reactionary?

Eyes > I am a Stirnerite egoist, I do not need your corporate or your clannish slave morality, I have my own ambitions, my own visions, dreams and goals. Whether you sacrifice yourself for a corporation or a clan, you're still practicing a form of slave morality, ...at least with corporations, they don't put a gun to your head, if you do not wish to be a part of them, you can leave. I am my own highest value.

Can only point out that you think an individual [the kind abstracted from his past] is always prior to his ends is a great naivete; every individual comes with a long inherited genetic/memetic pre-history. How can the one who does not know himself know his self-limitation and thus the Form of his ego, espouse Egoism?
And only a slave morale would hold sacrifice as a passive submission.
To a Master, sacrifice means actively 'owning'-by-owning up, capitalizing, shaping, and 'elevating' his self in its entirety 'as' an entirety; a self-Overcomer, not a Preserver. A 'clannish' 'Individual' attempts to Spare nothing, not one single thing, least of all himself. He conserves nothing, not the past, not himself, he is a constant over-coming. He covets everything before and behind him, and gives everything as a gift to his self, he is a Lover and a self-Lover.
The modern individual like you, "can only be posed" as an egoist because you lack the will to rule, to want to subject and assimilate everything, to shape things right from scratch Without Sparing anything. You on the contrary want to be Spared! That is why you in the recent past have said things like "if everyone does their duty and minds their own business, takes care not to be overly greedy, doesn't bother me as I go abt. my business, this world would be a better and happier place". A Xt. preaching to be Spared...
From the Modernity thread; " I just get by in this world, I'm barely a part of the system, I am like a ghost, a phantom, if I left this world, few would notice or care. I was never a good slave."

Eyes > There is a time to be quick and a time to be slow, it's about context.

You are not only pity-full, but now you are a Liar. Atleast have the courage to affirm, you mocked at his age, don't leave yourself in the lurch!
What IS Philosophy, if not primarily a Bold and Honest Art of Living? Its not about "Subscribing" to some positions of someone here and there, nit-picking to choose what suits your advantage,, but self-integrity. Even the Cynics had honour when they went about seeking dishonour at themselves. When you squirm and justify your way like this, how can you not but wonder why a "philosopher" attacks you, when you think you've been nothing but forthcoming and 'considerate' of him! Lets assume he has No coherent Philosophy and its full of holes and contradictions, it is full of rubbish, and yet he would still be a "Philosopher" because at the very least he 'tries to be' honest with himself. It is abt. a mode of living. -'That' is why Satyr is spot-on when he says your heart 'stirs' towards him and you cannot understand it, and you call him schizoid! It was not about quick, slow and contexts when you Picked at his age; I introduced that! It was you simply calling him a fool for "waking up only after so long" and all that Xt. condescendence for inefficiency. The only reason I raised this is not to lecture you in a 'thou shalt behave in such and such a way' vein, but because all the while you keep saying you are not a Xt. Your Actions contradict your self-regard, and that's perfectly fine! and how it should be with your kind, but atleast be aware of yourself.

Eyes > 'Lyssa', I find it amusing you're criticizing me

I am criticizing the Absurdity of Your calling Yourself Superior for 'challenging' / 'refuting' someone's philosophy Because you Claim it has Contradictions; which exposes Your need for Certainty, to box him to make him usable.

Eyes > for doing what Satyr,..., does on a regular basis... Has Satyr not made it his lifes work to know and unerstand people, their strengths and especially their weaknesses, categorising, labeling, placing individuals in boxes so as to make them predictable, and non threatening.

You are con-fusing your need to do away with contradictions to his need to do away with inconsistencies. A phil. can have many contradictions but be consistent overall.
Another kind of phil. may have no contradictions (because it compartmentalizes) but be inconsistent overall. There's an important lesson he's showing here.
When you claim to be one person and yet your actions have been otherwise to the contrary, did he refute such people as Weak or did he call them Dangerous?
Satyr from the Modernity thread;

"Compartmentalization just does not work for me. i cannot hold a different set of rules in one area, metaphysics, let's say, and then totally contradict them in physics.
I cannot claim to hold onto one set of rules in one area and then act and behave in ways that are antithetical to them.
If I cannot justify why I do this then I am a hypocrite and a liar or delusional and retarded.
For instance, you can't claim that sexual characteristics are superficial and all are equal and then cling unto the label of female when it suits you.
You can't say appearances do not matter and then judge something based on nothing more than its appearance.
You can't say in public that discrimination is wrong and then in private discriminate with such vehemence that it makes you even worse than those that do so openly and honestly."

For you, that a contradiction exists is enough reason to dismiss a phil./person as weak and useless and a fool and a schizoid.
For him, that no contradiction exists (because everything is in neat compartments), is enough reason to understand 'how' a weak phil./person 'thrives' .
Go read his thesis. The Judaeo-Xt. duality and the 'double-think' of the Left are how they make their 'philosophy' to work! Does Satyr try to make them "non-threatening" by 'labelling' them as Feminizers? Does he dismiss them as stupid, useless and schizoid for their compartmentalization and un-contradicting double-think, or is he at pains to show the threat they pose - the very extinction of Man?? Can You understand the Gravity of his thesis?
Nevermind if or how well I know my lord and master, do You Know Yourself?

Eyes > I know you're just standing by your man, but do try to know what your man represents, at least.

How typically unoriginal... I'm tempted to let this pass but we Ice-landers, we 'Lovers', don't want to spare anything; we shall not let-waste anything! Lets pick this line up with our ornate tweezers and examine the froth of jealousy foaming... how shall we enjoy this and give it meaning without putting it to waste? I demonstrate. Here we have a scene that takes us back to Euripides' Bacchae. Pentheus is extremely jealous and threatened by Bacchus' growing popularity in the city. He calls Bacchus and his women followers 'schizoid'. He 'ties up' Bacchus and laughs claiming his 'Superiority', only to have Bacchus standing free before him. Pentheus cannot understand how he managed that. Bacchus tries to help, saying, "I am Balanced, you are Not. Know yourself". Pentheus is too self-fixated to understand any of it; he still looks at Bacchus like an ordinary man, he does not grasp him as an Event, a Phenomenon like Lightning. He doesn't understand he's been Zapped!! Pentheus now wants to dress like and become a woman because jealousy and curiosity get the better of him and he wants to peek at the Bacchic women, he wants to understand why his heart stirs for Bacchus although he denies it, he too yearns to be a woman-follower. He changes himself into a woman... he prowls about like this, not understanding the Gravity of what he has Lost and put at stake. Pentheus is an Egoist, too narcissistic to understand Bacchus, and in the end, has his head decapitated and loses his Ego, the very thing he clung to... Pentheus thinks this is all a game, change of sex is as casual as changing clothes, no harm or consequences to pay in such a harmless play. He cannot encounter the weight of what Bacchus is telling him; he thinks Bacchus is just a man playing games whom he has defeated. His Self-Extinction as Man doesn't hit him at all. Such is the terrifying tragic nature of the line "I know you're just standing by your man, but do try to know what your man represents, at least." that Eyes is acting out before our Eyes.
Lets thank Eyes and pay heed to the example he's offered of Himself for us!


Poison > Lyssa, Women don't misspell.

No they don't, and I'm a woman; so check wiki.

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:14 am

Vanitas wrote:
At least you've admitted that your love for your grandmother is minus reason.

Stronger than reason.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:15 am

Whoa there, nigga...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:01 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Vanitas wrote:
At least you've admitted that your love for your grandmother is minus reason.

Stronger than reason.
All instinctive.

I remember reading how a native American granny told a white child in her care to be careful and cover up outside because of the strong sun.

How moving.

I shall have to write to mother nature and plea for her to spare the untermensch from destruction due to this one act of kindness.

Sob.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:12 pm

Cool story, Hansel.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:26 pm

Lyssa wrote:



Poison > Lyssa, Women don't misspell.

No they don't, and I'm a woman; so check wiki.

Huh? What does wiki have to offer? You spelled it mast(e)rbate, and the correct spelling is mast(u)rbate.

Anyway, I really dig your writing style. Good to see a decent woman around for once ;]]
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:31 pm

Vanitas wrote:
At least you've admitted that your love for your grandmother is minus reason.
If you scare the specimen away we can't all have fun with it.

But you can see, already, the contradictions in its thinking...no?

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:43 pm

If you're going to play the "cut out a whole sentence of my post" game, than we cant play, love Smile
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:53 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr > Yes, but I cannot ascribe to the idea of a Christian state, the Vatican. Each religion has its own spirit.

Yes, of course. What I am trying to point out is two kinds of decadence;
One, is the Spenglerian view that a culture organically grows into a civilization that organically loses its drive and withers away and dies.
Two, is, the decadence that is brought-upon like a contagion spreading to the healthy parts. 'Did Rome fall or was the falling Rome pushed also?' Did it decline naturally or was it assisted and hastened to its 'decline' from its natural organic pace?
Lack of resources, lagging military discipline, drained by barbaric invasions, etc. etc. are natural signs of an organic decline; but Xt. didn't fight Rome, it subverted it. This is what I understand Nietzsche and Heisman to mean... Xt. could triumph and 'stand' as the Form of an inverted pyramid 'because' Rome didn't decline - Xt. 'stood' by modelling itself on 'thriving' Roman structures and organization, when it had no forms of its own.
For this reason, Nietzsche called the Xt. Church the "last construction of the Romans". Considering that the Church was the exact opposite of everything Christ stood for - anti-state, political structures of any form, etc.; Pauline Xt. was essentially an inverted replica of Roman genius. And even in what 'appears' to be its most waning period, as if its Xt. that triumphed, he remarks;
"When the "masters" could also become Christians. - ...it lies in the instinct of the rulers to patronize and applaud the virtues that make their subjects useful and submissive. ...Submission of the master races to Christianity is essentially the consequence of the insight that Christianity is a herd religion, that it teaches obedience: in short, that Christians are easier to rule than non-Christians." [WTP, 216], and,
“The thesis of Charles Maurras is also ours: pagan Rome had "created" [emphasis in original] Catholicism as a system of order in opposition to Christian anarchy." [Evola, Heathen Imperialism]
From a Machiavellian view, Borgia as 'Pope' was one step short of restoring Rome as a pagan Imperium.
This also explains why the NS regime didn't receive Spengler too well and vice-versa. Imagine a Spengler telling people that Rome lived great, decayed and died naturally!, when the NS were at pains to show how Rome and Germany were being inverted.
And I would say an organism is only as good as those that oppose it.
If Rome fell because of a Judeo-Christian disease then it did so because it was already growing weak. The disease was around, as all diseases are, way before Rome came about.
Rome, by the way and according to Spengler, was a later stage of Hellenic (Greek) culture...it was a civilization birthed in culture but not a culture itself.
We might say that America is a civilization birthed in Judeo-Christianity, mixed with Anglo-saxon submission (as Heisman described) but it was not the culture of Judaism.

Rome began to grow weak when it had defeated its most powerful enemies. That's when decadence set-in.

See, it's cyclical....ascent results in decline and decline leads to ascent.
It's why no ONE authority can ever stand.

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr > For me the virtue of knowing yourself is not something mystical.
When I say essence I mean your spirit as this has been determined by your past. To know yourself is to know your past...but to know something you must accept it.

Understand and agree. But let me point out how Evola's notion of the "mystical" Was to denote the sacred connect with the past!
"Transcendence as known to the Civis Romanus is no escape from the Contingent, nor is it submissiveness to a God to which he refers to only nominally or symbolically as a being per se, but is in reality, a point of spiritual force one reaches, not by prayer, but by Will, and which then finds expression upon the existential plane in the form of consequential acts of realization." [Preface to Evola's Revolutionary Force of Rome]

To take one example, the Roman Fides; which started as "devotion" to the entire past and the gods of its past, its ancestors, became expanded, into fidelity of a citizen to his state, and finally inverted by Xt. into devotion to one's neighbours:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or,
"in ancient Latin, 'pietas' belonged to the domain of sacredness, it designated the particular relationship which the Roman had with divinities in the first place, then with other realities connected with the world of Tradition, including the State itself. Towards gods, it was an attitude made of calm and worthy worship : a feeling of belonging and, at the same time, of respect, of gratefulness, as well as of duty and of adherence, as a development of the feeling aroused by the severe figure of the 'pater familias' (hence the 'pietas familias'). (...) pietas could also manifest itself in the political field : 'pietas in patriam' meant fidelity and duty towards the State and the fatherland. In certain cases, the word could also mean 'justitia'. Those who do not know 'pietas' is the unjust, almost the impious, those who do not know where their place." [Evola, 'L'arco e la clava] --- inverted into Xt. "piety" for Christ, etc.

Or, the inversion of Roman Chivalry and Charity in Euergetism to Xt. Grace;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Point being, it is with (inversion of such) Roman "spirituality", Xt. was able to prevail, to "stand".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Very good...
Now take notice of my position:
My past is a devotion to my ancestors and if I were to do them honor then I would not bow or submit to any other divinity.
To place this divinity "outside" myself, outside my past, is a form of sacrilege.

If I were to tolerate any other form of authority outside my own then it could noly be to stregthen and to honor to my own.

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr > ...being male is being another female.

Evola and Rosenberg [Myth of 20th century] too, emphasized an inversion here; the rise of Feminism to the Aristotlean theories of positing the Family as the basic unit of the State, as opposed to the Warrior-clans and the Mannerbunde as the foundation of the State! [Not looked at elaborately in your thesis]. Ch.2 is an interesting one.
Of course while Rosenberg was only concerned with the rise of Feminism, you speak of Feminization. He was talking from the perspective of Feminism vs. the State; you point out that now Feminism is a property, representation, and principal means 'of' the State to preserve itself.
More than this...I speak of it as a normal, a natural, byproduct of social behavior.
Once you recognize social behavior as a product of weakness then you see what compromises had to be made, on an evolutionary scale.

Once this is understood then the matter becomes one of numbers: the bigger the group one must integrate within the larger the emasculation.
The smaller the group the more your integrity as a human being, as a natural organism, is preserved and respected.

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



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:02 pm

I don't want to spend another day demonstrating that you are wrong, so let me be clear.
The sentence being ignored by vanitas, and now by you, reads:

phoneutria wrote:

Both fear and love, as well as anger and contentment, are hormone mediated emotions, driven by the reptilian brain. They are by design thoughtless. The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process.

Quote :

The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process

Quote :
The reasoning that we apply

Quote :
reasoning
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14008
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:28 pm

Sweeety, therein lies your attempted deception.

Here it is:
The reasoning that we apply...

what does this even say?
Nothing.
It leaves the mind to hover over ambiguity, being led to feel a bit ashamed for "not getting it" when nothing is stated.
This is a typical ploy, sweetie.

The retard accuses the other of what it intended all along.
you have no fuckin' clue, pretty girl, and you cover it up with this shit:

That....this....what if.....supposed.....and short little trite nonsensical innuendos which you can then manipulate into deep thoughts intended only for the rare few.
You, little slut, are a whore....short and sweet.
You belong to those who love whores, whose love is given to all indiscriminately (hypocritically speaking) and perspectives and who do not care for judgments; those who buy into the whore's lingo and whore's tactics; those whom buy and sell and adore whores.

But, why do you protest?
Are you not a whore?
Is your affection not given to all, just because they are born, supposedly, human?
Is not your respect (your fear) not offered to all,, given that all define you and determine you and make you feel and sense your identity?
Are these others not your pimps, dear whore?

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

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:46 am

Satyr > And I would say an organism is only as good as those that oppose it.
If Rome fell because of a Judeo-Christian disease then it did so because it was already growing weak. The disease was around, as all diseases are, way before Rome came about.Rome began to grow weak when it had defeated its most powerful enemies. That's when decadence set-in.

I am saying Rome was not destroyed like it were cut and taken out piece by piece and dismantled. Xt. didn't break its intactness, just inverted it and parasited on its vitality.

Satyr > Rome, by the way and according to Spengler, was a later stage of Hellenic (Greek) culture...it was a civilization birthed in culture but not a culture itself.
We might say that America is a civilization birthed in Judeo-Christianity, mixed with Anglo-saxon submission (as Heisman described) but it was not the culture of Judaism.

A culture keeps flourishing, there's a max. ceiling and when it touches this, it doubles back on itself and the direction of forces reverses and concentrates pulling everything inwardly... this later becomes so solid, it petrifies, and the cycle begins again. I see it as one organic process, culture and culture-extending civilization. American civilization is an extension of (Anglo-)Jewish culture.

Satyr > See, it's cyclical....ascent results in decline and decline leads to ascent.
It's why no ONE authority can ever stand.

Yes.

Satyr > My past is a devotion to my ancestors and if I were to do them honor then I would not bow or submit to any other divinity.
To place this divinity "outside" myself, outside my past, is a form of sacrilege.
If I were to tolerate any other form of authority outside my own then it could noly be to stregthen and to honor to my own.

Tell me if I've understood your concept of past correctly. The past is the sum of all previous nurturings and it is not something static, it keeps unfolding into the 'present'. It is not something like an object that you look behind, but unfolds and inter-acts along with you... so anything out of this inter-active nurturing is not one you'd consider your own, and if you do, it is to activ-ate/keep active this past. Yes?

Satyr > More than this...I speak of it as a normal, a natural, byproduct of social behavior.

Thanks for alerting me.

Satyr > Once you recognize social behavior as a product of weakness then you see what compromises had to be made, on an evolutionary scale.
Once this is understood then the matter becomes one of numbers: the bigger the group one must integrate within the larger the emasculation.
The smaller the group the more your integrity as a human being, as a natural organism, is preserved and respected.

I get this. There is some sacrifice and compromise involved, larger the organization. But is Feminization the only natural result,, what about Masculinization of Man? Does it not depend on the direction of the idea(l)?

Poison > Good to see a decent woman around for once ;]]

I'm learning from you as well; greetings of this spring to you.


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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge

Back to top Go down
 
Open Challenge
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 6 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Open Challenge
» QC to bid out contract to convert Payatas open dump into sanitary landfill
» Open eyes Vision
» Open vision of nice Black shoes
» Another open vision inthe spirit!!

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