Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences

Quote :

Your views on race, how are you deriving value-standards, what kind of society and future you envision.

What are your guiding ideals?

About Value:

Value is a relation between the kind of creature that you are, and the world as it is. It’s something possible after you mix the ingredients of a physiological creature with a physical world. Valuable things, in a general sense, are what lead to flourishing.

What flourishing involves, I’ll say what I can below. But that I don’t have all the answers, doesn’t mean there aren’t answers to be had. --Answers that are apart from subjective opinion, because it’s no part of subjective opinion to be able to change what you are, or the world as it is. Subject-dependent (rooted in your body), but not subjective (rooted in your opinion).

When I think about questions of morality or value (which are just questions about how I ought to act, and what I ought to pursue), that is the lens that I look through.

I do not find value etched on stone tablets, or decreed from some starry dynamo in the machinery of night. Nor is value something brought back from a journey into some noumenal realm, where things-in-themselves grow. What’s valuable is not valuable simply because “God says so”, nor if you replace ‘God’ with ‘ancestors’, ‘parents’, or anything else. --None of whom would have pointed just to what they say, to justify what they say.

How you figure out what someone values:

It is straightforward enough to figure out what I value. One way is to play the “Why?” game. For example, I would be asked ‘why?’ I got out of bed. I would give you an answer, and then you would again ask me “why?” I engage in the activity of whatever my answer was. And you would repeat the “why?” question again, and again, and again.

The point is to get past everything I do merely as a means to something else. You want to arrive at my ends---‘ends’ are synonymous with goals and purposes. Once you have them, you have what I value. (They are the things that I do for their own sake).

Somebody who has no worldly ends (that is, goals or purposes) is a nihilist. Somebody who locates their goals and purposes in an other-world is also a different kind of nihilist.

I am a pluralist about value. Excellence, insight, understanding, experience, pleasure, beauty are some of my values. These are the fabric of the ideals that guide me. They are the values that you’d find the game terminate at, for me. These are the things that motivate my actions, and to which my actions are directed at. They are my values. General questions beget general answers.

There are a few ways of knowing when the “Why?” game has ended, or alternatively, why it is not going to end for that person.

How you know the “Why?” game has ended:

One way you know the game is over is when the answer to the “Why?” question is analytical. For example, pleasure is an end. It makes no sense to ask, “Why do you pursue pleasure?” ---because the concept “good” is analytically contained in the concept “pleasure”. If it wasn’t, you’d call it “pain”.

However, you think that the question makes sense only because when you ask it, you are thinking of whether some particular pleasure will cause greater pain, down the road. But, asking whether ‘pleasure is good’ is like asking whether a bachelor is an unmarried male. It’s analytical true.

And when someone objects to pleasure as an end, it is only ever because they are thinking of particular pleasures, AND they are a decadent (someone whose pleasures are for things that harm them). One objection is that someone might think a masochist enjoys pain, and dislikes pleasure. That’s only because the masochist gets a greater psychological pleasure from bodily pain.

Enough about pleasure. I give it as an example because it’s the most controversial example.

It’s also obvious when the game has not ended. If someone says, “Power is my ultimate goal” ---you can ask them what they want power for, and that question makes perfect sense, because power, like money, is merely a means.

The game terminates, for me. There are definite and foundational values that are the general ends of what I do as means. My goals aren’t justified circularly, as they would be if I said, “I want insight for pleasure, and I want pleasure for insight”. Nor do my purposes trace back infinitely, (which is really just a hidden nihilism).

How do you know what is valuable? I.e., How is value justified?

You can derive values from the way the world is, and what you are. For example, once I know what a wrist watch is, I can understand what it ought to do---and thus I can say, (if it doesn't do what it ought), that it is a bad wrist watch. ('Bad' or 'good' is an evaluation). The same applies for creatures such as us. I ought to learn, because otherwise I am not good at being what I am. I am partly a thinking creature.

Any normative evaluation (e.g., "good or bad") that is taken from descriptive facts about a creature relies on the notion that that creature has some purpose built into its physiology, or else built into other descriptive facts about the world. Yes, so? For example, the wrist-watch is a bad wrist-watch because it doesn't keep time. But if keeping time was NOT the purpose of the watch, then I couldn't say it was actually a 'bad' watch. The same applies to humans.

To know whether a person is flourishing or not, or what leads to that, is often not even a complicated question, at all. It’s obvious, and apparent. When it is not obvious, we answer it by studying what we are.

- Someone starving on the street, is not flourishing. Someone culturing themselves with the world’s learning is.
- Someone addicted to drugs is not flourishing. Someone building connections and sharing experiences is.
- Some teenage girl whose self-respect is sustained by who she can feed on and exploit, is not flourishing. And if that teenage girl is actually a middle-aged man, even worse.

You can chart extremes like these, and work toward the murkier issues. It’s a start, at least.

The ancient Greeks did not have a distinction between ‘prudence’ and ‘morality’---both only meant the topic concerning “how you ought to act”. There was no division of the term ‘ought’. The distinction arose in the religious Dark Ages. It was essentially between that which is good for you in this world (prudence), versus that which is good for you in the world to come—i.e., God’s world (morality). This is a distinction without a difference. I do not have this distinction in my head. And thus, what counts as ‘flourishing’ is often not as hard of a question as it looks. That’s still not to say I have all the answers.

“Just because”

Any particular thing that is valuable is valuable “just because” of this relation between what you are, and the world. That is where the foundational WHY question about value ends. Your values are the things that lead to this flourishing relation. You can delve into understanding the world and your physiology through science and other subjects… but those are WHAT or HOW questions. They do not change the fact that what’s valuable is valuable “just because” of that relation between you and the world. There is nothing from an other-world to appeal to---nor do you need it---to justify that relation between what you are and the world.

“Random-mixing”

I don’t have a problem with miscegenation at some general level, because I am a race realist and an elitist. As far as I know, you cannot be both of those things, and still have a problem with miscegenation in general. And frankly, to choose a partner who embodies what you value is not “random” mixing---it’s the opposite of random. The whole conversation of this is still in Chatbox Trivialities. Don’t ask me to play whac-a-mole.

Kinds of society:

One that maximizes the presence of what I mentioned above as valuable. If the question is more specific, about types of political systems, I’m going to refrain from answering, because I haven’t thought much about particular political systems. I can see some benefits and some problems with all of them. I’m open to arguments.

You stupid idiot...

Word-games is all you are about.
It explains WHY you find companionship in Phonee.

Moron, the question WHY? has two angels:

1- It asks for a meaning, which is absent, and is a quintessential human question, relating to existence....begging for a purpose.

2- It asks for a cause...as in "Why did the volcano explode?" or "Why is Mooo a retard?" or "Why does the tide rise?" or "Why does it rain?" or "Why do I find females attractive?"

'Just because' as a 'relationship' is replacing one stupidity with another, both saying nothing.
Obviously, you imbecile, value is a relationship of observer and observed, but upon what grounds is it measured, what is it, and what purpose does it serve?

Saying "God is love, and love and God are tautologies, and so I feel love so God is in me" is saying nothing.

"Good" is what?
What is it an interpretation of. Does Good exist outside the human brain, you simpleton?
If not, then it is a human relationship to the world...based no what standard, you imbecile?
Sugar is good?
Why?
What causes the sugar to be interpreted in my brain as good?
What function does this interpretation serve?

Sex feels good?
Yes...and?
What purpose does this sexual activity serve?
Why did it evolve, as in what caused it to emerge a a dominant survival strategy?

The watch is 'bad' when it does not fulfill the purpose it was made to serve.
Homosexuality is bad when it contradicts the reason sex, and the male/female types, evolved, you simpleton.
Drinking piss is bad, because it goes against the reason why man hydrates, or consumes food.
Not just because...but why do we not drink piss and feel pleasure when drinking water?

Pleasure is not an end, you pathetic fuck.
It is a means, a mechanism.
It is the sensation of what?
A release...a release of what?
A gratification?
Of what?

If you do not want to explore, then go back to fucking monkeys and writing romantic poems to married women.

According to your "thinking" no philosophy books should ever be written, just because....that's all you need.

That you want to get rid of the uncertainty, of the infinite regress, exposes you as a cowardly nihilist.
The world is not contained within the interpretations of a single species, spinning around a small star on the edge of one amongst billions of galaxies, you arrogant fuck.
What is good for you is not a universal truth.
It is an interpretation of a universal phenomenon, that is neither good nor bad.
Objectivity is going beyond the human, to see the essence of what this relationship of man and otherness is.  


Moron....
the phrase 'A bachelor is unmarried' rests on a human convention. There is no marriage and therefore no bachelorhood outside human systems, the human mind.

Pleasure, is  good, is a human interpretation of something that exists independent of human conventions and the human mind.

An animal cannot be a bachelor, but it can feel pleasure.

Desire and pain are the same. Some desires may be so light we wouldn't normally think to call them pain, but for the sake of simplicity we may as well refer to them as only smaller degrees of pain.

Desire/pain is the seeking towards its lessening. What is considered the feeling of pleasure is actually the lessening of pain/desire. Before and after desire/pain there's no pleasure.

One that is in a near constant state of strife, rarely creates the idea of pleasure as its goal/desire. But, as to one who is protected and nourished by others, lacking sufficient desire/pain, it often turns on itself and it creates desires/pain. In the case of the hedonist, the desire/pain it creates is the desire/pain for pleasure.

That is a parasitic desire/pain; the only means to its lessening is that of lessening other desires/pains. But, already lacking most desire/pain, its forced to lessen the few it has in an untimely manner, using short cuts. For example, rather than lessening the desire/pain to solve a complex problem by actually approaching an answer to that problem, it simply becomes intoxicated thereby temporarily, or even permanently, destroying that which can sustain that desire/pain.

Scum like Moooo infest ILP and now this maggot wants to fester here as well. The filth seeks to spread.

His "just because" proves all there is to know about this manimal. That is his "philosophy", just because. Why? Just because.

The very fact that these maggots can infest a "philosophy" forum, and seek to spread elsewhere, really marks them for what they are. Their lack of basic human intelligence is just too much. They seek what they do not have. In this case, it is not only a complete lack of common sense intelligence, but a complete lack of exploration, curiosity, and desire for knowledge.

Because these maggots are dogmatists. They already "know". They are not here to learn, but to espouse slave ideas which consume their thoughts.

Exposing these faggots is very difficult on ILP, but on a real philosophy forum, it's just too fucking easy........

Æon wrote:

Scum like Moooo infest ILP and now this maggot wants to fester here as well.  The filth seeks to spread.

His "just because" proves all there is to know about this manimal.  That is his "philosophy", just because.  Why?  Just because.

The very fact that these maggots can infest a "philosophy" forum, and seek to spread elsewhere, really marks them for what they are.  Their lack of basic human intelligence is just too much.  They seek what they do not have.  In this case, it is not only a complete lack of common sense intelligence, but a complete lack of exploration, curiosity, and desire for knowledge.

Because these maggots are dogmatists.  They already "know".  They are not here to learn, but to espouse slave ideas which consume their thoughts.

Exposing these faggots is very difficult on ILP, but on a real philosophy forum, it's just too fucking easy........

Hey, what do we have here? An actual whole post with no mention of male/female!!

:pinching myself:

You perhaps didn't read the other thread; Mo's post is because "I" asked him to elaborate and clarify his views, because Satyr asked me to inculcate some pride into the whole affair.

Æon wrote:

Scum like Moooo infest ILP and now this maggot wants to fester here as well.  The filth seeks to spread.

His "just because" proves all there is to know about this manimal.  That is his "philosophy", just because.  Why?  Just because.

The very fact that these maggots can infest a "philosophy" forum, and seek to spread elsewhere, really marks them for what they are.  Their lack of basic human intelligence is just too much.  They seek what they do not have.  In this case, it is not only a complete lack of common sense intelligence, but a complete lack of exploration, curiosity, and desire for knowledge.

Because these maggots are dogmatists.  They already "know".  They are not here to learn, but to espouse slave ideas which consume their thoughts.

Exposing these faggots is very difficult on ILP, but on a real philosophy forum, it's just too fucking easy........

Calm down, or your makeup might run.
Take your fingers out of your pussy, and type a reply to something I actually said.
Exposing me shouldn't be hard... I was not writing as a fake, like you.

That would be an awfully waste of time. Some derive little pride from say pwning noobs on Nietzsche. Why don't you try learning something on Nietzsche instead. There are experts. I know one.

Every act produces either pride or shame. One or the other.

Mo wrote:

I was not writing as a fake, like you.

OOOOooooooooooo I like that!!! A faker!

Moooooo, yes I am a "faker". Banned dozens of times from ILP. ***I*** am the faker! It was never a case of me wanting to explore reality, on ILP. I was never, not once, banned for pointing out a hypocrisy, a controversy, an unsettling observation. I was always, always "faking" it. I love this.

***I*** am the faker, not you faggot maggots on ILP.

Why? Just because. Thanks Mooo, a lot of valuable information here. Just because.

You give the perfect reaction to deal with your types. Interested in exploring reality? Just because, my dear, dear friend. Just because.

A perfect answer, for your kind.

Mo wrote:

... type a reply to something I actually said.

Mo wrote:

And when someone objects to pleasure as an end, it is only ever because they are thinking of particular pleasures, AND they are a decadent (someone whose pleasures are for things that harm them). One objection is that someone might think a masochist enjoys pain, and dislikes pleasure. That’s only because the masochist gets a greater psychological pleasure from bodily pain.

Stuart wrote:

Desire and pain are the same. Some desires may be so light we wouldn't normally think to call them pain, but for the sake of simplicity we may as well refer to them as only smaller degrees of pain.

Desire/pain is the seeking towards its lessening. What is considered the feeling of pleasure is actually the lessening of pain/desire. Before and after desire/pain there's no pleasure.

One that is in a near constant state of strife, rarely creates the idea of pleasure as its goal/desire. But, as to one who is protected and nourished by others, lacking sufficient desire/pain, it often turns on itself and it creates desires/pain. In the case of the hedonist, the desire/pain it creates is the desire/pain for pleasure.

That is a parasitic desire/pain; the only means to its lessening is that of lessening other desires/pains. But, already lacking most desire/pain, its forced to lessen the few it has in an untimely manner, using short cuts. For example, rather than lessening the desire/pain to solve a complex problem by actually approaching an answer to that problem, it simply becomes intoxicated thereby temporarily, or even permanently, destroying that which can sustain that desire/pain.

Upon reflection, the example of intoxication was unhelpful, because you had already ruled out harmful pleasure as a goal. But, having pleasure as any goal is still a form of turning on one self.

Like the redundancy inherent in the idea of the mind-body dualism; making pleasure (the natural effect of desire/pain when lessened) become your desire, is a form of redundancy.

"My body is substantial, but my mind is not, but yet it can effect my brain to some extent through the pineal gland".

Substance of course being that which can effect, thereby logically the mind in the above statement is actually substantial despite the denial, and so all that dualism does is create a redundancy of brain and mind.

I desire pleasure so much it hurts, I must fulfill this desire."

But, the only way to fulfill that desire is to fulfill another desire, a substantial one, whether it be eating, drinking, or numerous others. Therefore, hedonistic or not, there's still a redundancy.

Stu,

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to.

Stuart. wrote:

Desire and pain are the same.

That's a category mistake.

Quote :

Desire/pain is the seeking towards its lessening. What is considered the feeling of pleasure is actually the lessening of pain/desire. Before and after desire/pain there's no pleasure.

As you wish.

Stuart just remember when dealing with Mooooo and the other ILP types, to not ask questions.

Why not? Just because

Satyr wrote:

'Just because' as a 'relationship' is replacing one stupidity with another, both saying nothing.
Obviously, you imbecile, value is a relationship of observer and observed...

Just because of...
Go on...

One line you say it’s stupid, the next line you say it’s obviously true.

Quote :

but upon what grounds is it measured, what is it, and what purpose does it serve?

Grounded in the world and what you are. The purpose is the flourishing of one’s nature. Read the post, bright genius.

Quote :

Pleasure is not an end, you pathetic fuck.
It is a means, a mechanism.
It is the sensation of what?
A release...a release of what?
A gratification?
Of what?

From the perspective of the organism itself, pleasure is an end, among others. That’s obvious, and explained in the post.

Quote :

According to your "thinking" no philosophy books should ever be written, just because....that's all you need.

Is that so?

Quote :

That you want to get rid of the uncertainty, of the infinite regress, exposes you as a cowardly nihilist.

Without goal/purpose, you are a nihilist. If you are without goal/purpose because you trace yours backwards infinitely, you are a nihilist. --Just as you would be if you traced it back to another world.

Mo wrote:

Stuart. wrote:

Desire and pain are the same.

That's a category mistake.

Sensations are either produced internally within an organisms body, or produced externally by things outside the body. To separate sensation from desire or lack thereof is to equate sensations to an internal representation of events - whether internal themselves (such as something as simple as stomach pain, or as complex as a mental flashback of a traumatic occurrence is the organism's life) or external (such as something as simple as smell receptors catching the sent of food, or as complex of discerning an intelligent remark amongst many banal ones).

But, a representation of events in itself is common; a camera 'senses' light and represents it on film, and a recorder 'senses' sound and represents it on magnetic tape. What sensation needs to be 'felt' is an impetus towards action or inaction inherent in the representation.

An automatic door (perhaps based on a camera that detects sudden, small changes in the amount of light reflected on it) has no 'desire' to open in itself, the 'sensation' of object in front of it is what gives it that 'desire' - the sensation and the desire are simultaneous. And the door doesn't have the desire to close in itself either.

For the sake of argument let's say that the continued detection of the object in front of it is responsible for the continued use of energy to keep it open. Once the 'sensation' is gone, the 'desire' to stay open immediately is gone.

In a way we can say the mechanism feels pain when it senses a person standing next to it, and so to relive that pain it exerts itself (goes against the path of least resistance which is remaining closed) and opens, and we can say that the mechanism feels pleasure when it no longer senses the person there, and so it stops exerting itself (takes the path of least resistance.

So the consequence of desire is a movement away from entropy (the path of least resistance).

Life is a movement away from entropy in itself. Which explains why pleasure must always come after pain. If the sensation of being an emerging life form were pleasure, then it would have no impetus to emerge in the first place - a contradiction.

The emergence of life is pain, a movement away from the path of least resistance.

So desire/pain doesn't need a goal, it's, as said, a seeking towards it's lessening; pleasure is only the indicative sensation that the pain/desire is lessening.

To have the desire/pain towards pleasure is redundant, it's essentially to have desire/pain towards the cessation of desire/pain. Such a desire/pain doesn't have a path against entropy to take, its foundationless, it may as well 'lessen' itself by simply disappearing - by disappearing the desire/pain towards the cessation of desire/pain would have ceased.

But, what actually happens is this redundancy (this consequence of a sheltered mind turned in on itself) becomes parasitic on other desires/pains.

To explain the parasitic process, it's first necessary to understand that individual desires/pains within an organism have a complex system of interaction where priority is regularly being temporarily interchanged within a somewhat of a hierarchy. Like any healthy organization, individual healthy components are alternatively given their due.

A parasite in an organization has no such consideration. Whether always in the forefront (an self-proclaimed hedonist) or working behind the scenes (an unaware nihilist) it systematically undermines every healthy component until the organization itself fails.

Stuart wrote:

Sensations are either produced internally within an organisms body, or produced externally by things outside the body. To separate sensation from desire or lack thereof is to equate sensations to an internal representation of events

You can call 'desire' a sensation, if you want, but not all sensations are desires. They are separable.

Quote :

An automatic door (perhaps based on a camera that detects sudden, small changes in the amount of light reflected on it) has no 'desire' to open in itself, the 'sensation' of object in front of it is what gives it that 'desire' - the sensation and the desire are simultaneous. And the door doesn't have the desire to close in itself either.

The door doesn't have desires, and when you speak like that, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The door responds to whatever it does, and if you want to define ‘desire’ as any response to anything, then ok. But really, why mess with words like that?

Quote :

So the consequence of desire is a movement away from entropy (the path of least resistance).

Well, some people like Jazz music. I don't. But, maybe that's a counterexample.

Quote :

Life is a movement away from entropy in itself. Which explains why pleasure must always come after pain. If the sensation of being an emerging life form were pleasure, then it would have no impetus to emerge in the first place - a contradiction.

Again, I’m not sure what your criticism is. If you want to call 'pleasure' the absence of pain---that’s fine. It’s also fine if you want to call pain the absence of pleasure. Is this difference any more than an emotional response?

Quote :

So desire/pain doesn't need a goal, it's, as said, a seeking towards it's lessening;

The last half of the sentence is a good example of a goal, isn’t it?

Mo wrote:

Stuart wrote:

Sensations are either produced internally within an organisms body, or produced externally by things outside the body. To separate sensation from desire or lack thereof is to equate sensations to an internal representation of events

You can call 'desire' a sensation, if you want, but not all sensations are desires.

Yes, pleasurable sensations are not a desire, neither are neutral sensations.

Quote :

They are separable.

Yes, pleasurable sensations are separable from desire, in that they're the lack thereof.

Quote :

Quote :

An automatic door (perhaps based on a camera that detects sudden, small changes in the amount of light reflected on it) has no 'desire' to open in itself, the 'sensation' of object in front of it is what gives it that 'desire' - the sensation and the desire are simultaneous. And the door doesn't have the desire to close in itself either.

The door doesn't have desires, and when you speak like that, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Explaining philosophy using machine metaphors is not a new practice, and quotes were used to make it more clear that the example used was only such a metaphor.

Quote :

The door responds to whatever it does, and if you want to define ‘desire’ as any response to anything, then ok. But really, why mess with words like that?

It was built with a purpose which we recognize (we don't have to, but in this case we'd be idiots not to). The door was designed to 'desire' to open with certain stimulus, the actual response of opening has nothing to do with the desire, for example, the door could be locked, or lack a sufficient energy source.

Basically, desire isn't any response to anything, it's only a response within a system capable of desire upon the correct stimuli. And then even then, we mustn't confuse the response of desire, with the substantial response of the being with the desire.

In a system incapable of desire: action upon it --> response.

In a system capable of desire: action upon it --> the response of desire and then only possibly a substantial response.

Quote :

Quote :

So the consequence of desire is a movement away from entropy (the path of least resistance).

Well, some people like Jazz music. I don't. But, maybe that's a counterexample.

Firstly, many may just claim to like jazz because its in fashion. Also, if jazz is a more chaotic music, it doesn't mean it doesn't have some order, so one would only need to be unfamiliar with more ordered music to prefer jazz. But, speaking to one who truly prefers it because its more chaotic, that preference is simply a very small form of self-hatred, and when listened to it's simply a very small form of self-destructive behavior. Hedonism being another.

Quote :

Quote :

Life is a movement away from entropy in itself. Which explains why pleasure must always come after pain. If the sensation of being an emerging life form were pleasure, then it would have no impetus to emerge in the first place - a contradiction.

Again, I’m not sure what your criticism is. If you want to call 'pleasure' the absence of pain---that’s fine. It’s also fine if you want to call pain the absence of pleasure. Is this difference any more than an emotional response?

It seems pain and pleasure are more or less ephemeral terms. So I understand the confusion. A sensation can go from painful to pleasurable and back just like an object can go from hot to cold then back. The reason the hot/cold dichotomy is substantial and the other isn't is because hot/cold are scientifically defined and measurable terms. Sensation can also, be scientifically defined and measured, but only in terms of strong/weak, not painful/pleasurable.

To scientifically define/measure sensation in terms of the latter would require a standard for what's ordering and what's disordering within a system complex enough to have what would even be called the experience of sensations (obviously a life form) rather than just the occurrence of stimuli upon it. Such a task would be hypothetical if pertaining to a system in a relatively small/simple enclosed environment, but factoring in a system's with a broader connection to the larger environment it becomes virtually impossible.

That's why to make philosophical progress in this line we mustn't just rely on people to go on the supposedly intuitive idea that pleasure and pain are reversible opposites, and instead to focus and how they relate to non-reversible dichotomies such as desire/relief.

Quote :

Quote :

So desire/pain doesn't need a goal, it's, as said, a seeking towards it's lessening;

The last half of the sentence is a good example of a goal, isn’t it?

On second thought, that definition wasn't well done. I failed to fully consider how 'desire' is both a noun and a verb and 'goal' isn't. If goal were to be considered a verb as well, then it wouldn't really be problematic to interchange the two terms.

Mo wrote:

Quote :

Life is a movement away from entropy in itself. Which explains why pleasure must always come after pain. If the sensation of being an emerging life form were pleasure, then it would have no impetus to emerge in the first place - a contradiction.

Again, I’m not sure what your criticism is. If you want to call 'pleasure' the absence of pain---that’s fine. It’s also fine if you want to call pain the absence of pleasure. Is this difference any more than an emotional response?

Stuart is right, but then buckled in his response to this reply of yours.

Its not the idea of relativizing pain and pleasure in terms of each other, but he was trying to say, from an Apollonian perspective, Life is an Ordering that emerges in reaction to Entropy, and since every ordering costs, life is rooted in in pain, suffering.

Quote :

"Life, as we know it, being that it is an ordering, can only emerge towards increasing entropy.
The closer you go towards absolute order, without attaining it, life becomes unnecessary.
The closer you go towards the absolute random, chaos, life becomes improbable." [Satyr]

And so the words pain/pleasure, as extensions of NEED, are descriptions of the organism's own constitution, its tastes determined by its past.
Pleasure is but a sensation of dealing with need, and so the degree the particular needs dominates our consciousnesses, determines the subsequent pleasure we will feel, sense, when it is reduced.
The pleasure felt proportional to this reduction.

Discomfort, suffering/pain, is a description of stress.
Entropy stresses my ordering, and I feel this as need, or my Becoming senses this, even if it may not register consciously - consciousness is the focus of the upon an interaction, and this focus we call Will, but if it is passive, without focus, then the sensation may not be conscious, and not clear, lucid.
A plant cannot focus its aggregate energies upon an interaction, it can only passively sense the entropy upon its ordering, as an insatiable need, which it then reacts to in automatically, thoughtlessly, not lucid, not clear to it, ways.
It's perceptions are in the moment, the moment being a smaller perceptual-event-horizon, and not a static thing, as a here/now in the absolute sense.
Consciousness being after the fact, is a looking back, and so this perceptual-even-horizon is a looking back - between interaction and reaction there is a temporal distance, a gap of space/time.
The plant's is shallow...and we call this immediate.

There is no nervous system with a brain, a processing hub, to facilitate this will focusing upon an object/objective. The plant will is distributed across its Becoming, as tiny sensory cells and automatic reactions...a blind seeking that cannot bridge time with foresight, as man can, not project in space as the potential, the possible, as higher biological forms can.
It cannot worry, nor prepare, and so cannot suffer, feel the stress of premonition, of the possible, of the theoretical.

Lyssa wrote:

Its not the idea of relativizing pain and pleasure in terms of each other, but he was trying to say, from an Apollonian perspective, Life is an Ordering that emerges in reaction to Entropy, and since every ordering costs, life is rooted in in pain, suffering.

That's fine.
Let me see if I get where you're going...

You want to say that "ordering" (whatever that involves, perhaps bringing your drives into check, creating hierarchy of goals, buying a day-planner and creating a schedule, or whatever) IS PAINNN!

Therefore, (perhaps you want to say), that one goal of a living being is (indirectly) pain---since the goal is ordering, and ordering results in pain. Which means, that one goal of life isn't pleasure, as I said.

Am I putting words in your mouth? In any case, I think it's a good point.

Pain in that case is still just a byproduct, rather than something pursued for its own sake, as a goal. Ordering may be the goal.

And I'm not sure why you say, "every ordering costs". (I.e., is tied to pain).
Imagine a bunch of disparate, random sounds. Chaotic. Noisy. Painful on the ears. Bring them into order and harmony, and you have a song. It was entropy that was painful, not the ordering.

That ordering took an exertion. The musician worked hard. But why call that creative effort pain?

When things go wrong in my body---(my body becomes relatively disordered)--is when I feel pain... not otherwise. --I.e., not when things are ordered and ordering themselves.


Just a few thoughts...

And this buffoon considers himself dominant in all things Nietzsche.

An imbecile, more proud of his drunken binges and the "fascinating" tales he can spin using them, than anything else.
He wants to validate himself and his hedonistic numbness.
Romanticism is the other side...that turns the real into a negative only a "cynic" would admit to.
An all around douche-bag, of no value, if one is in need of clarity rather than a saving grace.  

He is ripe for exploitation.
He seeks lies, to comfort himself by.  

If after all this the reason why creativity as effort, agon, does not register in this idiot's tiny mind as a degree of need/suffering, and why stress can ferment in a mind (artist's pain) into sweet nectar, is beyond his capacity to grasp, then he is truly lost to all...except those using each other as mental vibrators.

Best we use him as he begs to be used.
Let us feed this manimal some wine, to soften his meat,and to make his buzzzzz more vibrant.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
White noise, the sound of sleep, the hum of a battery-powered love-stick.

Enjoy.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Therefore, (perhaps you want to say), that one goal of a living being is (indirectly) pain---since the goal is ordering, and ordering results in pain. Which means, that one goal of life isn't pleasure, as I said.

That's a teRRRiBBLLLLe reading.

"One goal of a living being is indirectly pain" -  No. Atleast not in the Apollonian perspective.

The "living" being itself is an ordering.

Life IS an ordering emerging as such in reaction to entropy.

The goal of any living being is always its self-assertion, growth, expansion, etc.

This essential feature of life therefore inevitably involves struggle, pain, suffering, etc.


Your understanding of Nihilism in your reply to Satyr is also the foulest. BADDDD.


Do you have anything to say to Satyr's critique your position is very anthrosolipsistic and not reality-objective?[/quote]

Satyr wrote:

If after all this the reason why creativity as effort, agon, does not register in this idiot's tiny mind, as a degree of need/suffering, and why stress can ferment in a mind (artist's pain) into sweet nectar, is beyond his capacity to grasp, then he is truly lost to all...except those using each other as mental vibrators.

The result of ordering isn't pain/suffering. In the example, disparate and chaotic noise is suffering on the ears. Ordered and harmonious music is not. When the artist works, his exertion is directed at something that isn't just more pain and suffering. It's directed at the opposite, isn't it? And hence, I see no criticism to anything I've said in my OP.

Mo wrote:

Satyr wrote:

If after all this the reason why creativity as effort, agon, does not register in this idiot's tiny mind, as a degree of need/suffering, and why stress can ferment in a mind (artist's pain) into sweet nectar, is beyond his capacity to grasp, then he is truly lost to all...except those using each other as mental vibrators.

The result of ordering isn't pain/suffering.

You expend yourself in the process of ordering, leaving needs now for replenishing. So...

Life is a continual sacrifice.

Lyssa wrote:

That's a teRRRiBBLLLLe reading.

"One goal of a living being is indirectly pain" -  No.

No, I wasn't reading what you said. You didn't say anything that was a criticism of anything I said. So, I was trying to think of what you might want to say that had any relevance to the OP.

Quote :

Do you have anything to say to Satyr's critique your position is very anthrosolipsistic and not reality-objective?

What "critique"?
It's just the claim that life is suffering, combined with a bunch of hypocritical insults.

I don't want you to see anything, dear boy.
I want to use you, for my own ends, and you remaining as you are is best for me.

And in the absence of order, the noise, an artist organizes, with work/effort, to create melody from noise, he discovers melodies in the chaos as they appear to his sensitive ear, and he organizes them in harmonious ways, and those that hear it surrender to the beauty they crave themselves.
He seduces them with his artistry, and they surrender to his creation....produced by his suffering.

Lyssa wrote:

You expend yourself in the process of ordering, leaving needs now for replenishing. So...

Life is a continual sacrifice.

I don't call that pain. Why would I? Expending my energy like that is pleasure.

Are you naturally lazy?

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

That's a teRRRiBBLLLLe reading.

"One goal of a living being is indirectly pain" -  No.

No, I wasn't reading what you said.

Btw. fyi., I edited that adding "No. Atleast not in the Apollonian perspective."

Quote :

You didn't say anything that was a criticism of anything I said.

I did. - your relativizing pain and pleasure and defining them in terms of each other as if it made no difference to the context Stuart was raising.

Quote :

Quote :

Do you have anything to say to Satyr's critique your position is very anthrosolipsistic and not reality-objective?

What "critique"?
It's just the claim that life is suffering, combined with a bunch of hypocritical insults.

[/quote[

His eloquent critique which points to the observation your definition of Value is intra-human, and has no correspondence to a reality outside the human sphere.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

You expend yourself in the process of ordering, leaving needs now for replenishing. So...

Life is a continual sacrifice.

I don't call that pain. Why would I? Expending my energy like that is pleasure.

If you accept Life is an ordering, then expending is a pain.

Logical.

Quote :

Are you naturally lazy?

Are you an incorrigible tease?

Lyssa wrote:

His eloquent critique which points to the observation your definition of Value is intra-human, and has no correspondence to a reality outside the human sphere.

Did you even read my OP?

The typical moron understands concepts as absolutes.
So the need of ordering, is projected as pain/pleasure with no gradations of stress where the organism is resisting its own dissimulation with constant effort. If the effort is met with sufficient energies then none of it registers, consciously...and the moron calls this absolute bliss.

It has to be raised into consciousness for the moron to sense its reality.
So, a numbed mind needs increasingly higher sensations to become aware of its own existence.
Its numbness is mistaken for strength, when strength is understood as an ability to tolerate...a constitution where energies suffice to make the stress manageable, minimal, and so easily ignored.

The herd manimal is kept in a perpetual state of comfort, by the shepherd, who wants to keep it docile, its meat soft and delicious.
The manimal begins to believe that its comfort, atrophying, is a product of its own doing, or, realizing what it is, it begins feeling proud of its status as the shepherd's object/objective of care.
Expending energies is without risk, because energies are provided to it, for it.
It is replenished by a safety network, and so thinks this is its freedom.

The expenditure of energies is also a product of accumulation, resulting in a pressure which needs to be released.
Pleasure in releasing them, particularly when they are accumulated with ease, becomes its pastime.
The release need not be productive. Energies can be wasted, expended for the sake of expenditure.
In nature birthing only happens when the female accumulates the required energies needed to gestate and ween an offspring.
In times of severe austerity she does not give birth, and may even kill her young to enable the pride, in the case of lions, to survive.

The cycle...
Fluctuation leads to an accumulation of ordering potential.
If the organism is successful in its strategies energies amass, resulting in internal pressures...a different kind of pain, libidinal force.
When self-maintenance is achieved the excess becomes potential for growth = procreation, creation.
The accumulation of need result in a pressure to expend, to release, to increase.