Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 is there a superior race?

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



PostSubject: is there a superior race? Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:33 pm



42:20 "what is the future of race?genetics tell us there are subtle differences among us both on the inside and the outside.those differences emerged as we wondered the earth as separate tribes for more than 50,000 years.but now something new is happening in human history.WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO BE SEPARATE ANYMORE..technology combined with our deep instincts to work together is about to push us one giant step forward.and will create NOT A SUPERIOR RACE,BUT A SUPERIOR SPECIES,TO WHICH WE WILL ALL BELONG"

This is the liberal utopia..do you think "one humanity" is the future as predicted by Immanuel Kant ?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:01 pm

The dream of uniformity and unity is the same as Globalization.

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



PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:04 pm

It's possible that a species can aggregate together into a particular genotype, but the benefits of this might soon dry up, and in their place large problems arise.

It is important to the vitality of a species that it has variation.

To desire an end to the distinction between men is to desire an end to men.

I think that should such a state arise, "humanity" will long be gone. Humanity is not some "universal quality" in all people. It is a series of distinct qualities that form unique phenotypes in order to be better suited to survival (homo sapiens, particularly).

Current idealogies and political ideals convulute the need for survival with the need for oneness and sameness.
Back to top Go down
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 41
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:08 am

johngalthasspoken wrote:
WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO BE SEPARATE ANYMORE..technology combined with our deep instincts to work together is about to push us one giant step forward.and will create NOT A SUPERIOR RACE,BUT A SUPERIOR SPECIES,TO WHICH WE WILL ALL BELONG"

This is the liberal utopia..do you think "one humanity" is the future as predicted by Immanuel Kant ?

Satyr wrote:
The dream of uniformity and unity is the same as Globalization.
Exactly.

The reason given by the OP that 'we don't have the room to be separate anymore' is a marketing lie of white, liberal capitalism, one created and maintained through the pervasive brainwashing of modern media. Globalization is the inevitable consequence of the actions of the Alpha race, where other races are used to manufacture cheap goods or provide cheap labor and raw materials.

Evolution has already happened, we are left with the results.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:45 am

The lie is that of Judaic nihilism...monism.

Christianity is its child.

Heisman, the author of Suicide Note, connects the Jewish psychology with Anglo-Saxon resentment against the aristocratic Normans.
According to him the American Civil War was the last battle fought between these mindsets.

_________________
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: is there a superior race? Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:51 pm

A Marxist perspective; A Thermodynamic Approach to Globalization, etc:

"The “real” meaning or historical significance (not what people say about it to deceive so as to hide the working of power) of women’s liberation, its truth, can only be found in the history of the formation of the nation-state. It is another one of the tactics by which the nation-state can increase its metabolic rate and extract more energy from within in its incessant attempt to augment its power. The dramatically shifting fate of women in the history of the formation of the nation-state reflects the stages of the growth of the nation-state from infancy to maturity, each of which demanded a particular destiny or social role for women according to its needs.

"At this point the "liberation of women" can be understood as the process of supraorganismic integration (first wave, the granting of female suffrage rights which allows the state to establish a direct reciprocal relationship with women, dispensing with the "husband" hitherto serving as the mediator between the state and women) and then the augmentation of its metabolism (second wave, women mobilized for public production to increase production and consumption): in general, the process of building a tighter and larger open dissipative structure (corm, society as an economic unit), which is about to merge with others of its kind in the global interaction sphere to form an even larger open dissipative structure: this is the meaning of globalization, the rise of regional economies and the decline of the identity of individual nation-states.

"The lesson from Foucault's later work is that resistance against power operates as a part of power, and that the purpose (or rather, the consequence) of this resistance against power is the reinforcement of power.

"What is bio-power? It is best contrasted with the preceding "aristocratic" type of power.
The aristocratic type: Foucault characterizes this type of power as "le droit de faire mourir ou laisser vivre"; "instance de prélèvement... sur les choses, le temps, les corps et finalement la vie." ("The right or power to make die or let live"; "the power to 'tax' on subjects' things, time, bodies and finally life", p.178.) This type of (negative) power is representative of the "regulation system" for the metabolic pathways (energy-dissipation pathways) belonging to the "agricultural civilizations" (those kingdoms and empires).
Example: The King drafts his subjects to go to war, and taxes his peasants' grain for the consumption of aristocracy; if the subjects and peasants dare rebel, the King will kill them. If they obey, he'll let them live.

The bio-power (modern) type: Although the seeds of this "modernity" go back to the early middle ages, a clear boundary after which the aristocratic type of power is no more and this new type takes hold is the French Revolution. Foucault's characterization of this type of power is... "Son rôle... d'assurer, de soutenir, de renforcer, de multiplier la vie et de la mettre en ordre" ("its role... of assuring, supporting, reinforcing, multiplying life and putting life in order.") in contrast to the destruction and beating down of life around which the aristocratic power type centered.
Thus the transition to modernity is signified by a shift from the former condition in which people were negatively oppressed and prohibited in certain of their actions, to the modern condition in which people are positively shaped, molded, and conditioned to behave in prescribed ways.

Now the structure of bio-power. By bio-power Foucault refers to a coordinated series of institutions, apparently of independent origins (but created certainly under the same "cultural sensibility"), that may be grouped under the three components of bio-power:
the discipline of the individuals (at the level of individual citizens),
the regulation of the population (at the level of population),
and dispositifs sexuels serving as the link between the first two. In a word, the three components of bio-power constitute "l'administration des corps et la gestion calculatrice de la vie."

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


_________________
[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
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:02 pm

johngalthasspoken wrote:


42:20 "what is the future of race?

What the future of race will be is unknowable, what is knowable is that race is not static.

Quote :
This is the liberal utopia..do you think "one humanity" is the future as predicted by Immanuel Kant ?

There will never be "one" humanity as diversity and heterogeneity seems to be the dominate principle of nature.


Satyr wrote:
The dream of uniformity and unity is the same as Globalization.

Uniformity does not follow from unity, ie. an axle is a part of a car not the car itself. Making all the parts of a car uniform, would mean a car that was just axles, an absurdity. Globalization therefore in its true essence does not imply an end to diversity, only that the diverse parts co-operate in the interest of a whole. To this it makes the claim that the species is akin to an organ, made up of many different parts working in harmony under a perceived homogeneity.

As far as the topic, superiority implies responsibility and since all relationships are debt based, the question then is what responsibilities does a superior race have?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:15 pm

Ephemeron wrote:



Satyr wrote:
The dream of uniformity and unity is the same as Globalization.

Uniformity does not follow from unity, ie. an axle is a part of a car not the car itself. Making all the parts of a car uniform, would mean a car that was just axles, an absurdity. Globalization therefore in its true essence does not imply an end to diversity, only that the diverse parts co-operate in the interest of a whole. To this it makes the claim that the species is akin to an organ, made up of many different parts working in harmony under a perceived homogeneity.
In this case we are talking of genetic specialization but of memetic uniformity....one whole, one mind.
The diverse specialized roles are imposed as necessary by the needs of the whole; their control and direction becomes centralized.

Ephemeron wrote:
As far as the topic, superiority implies responsibility and since all relationships are debt based, the question then is what responsibilities does a superior race have?
In what way is the superior responsible for the inferior if the latter only functions as a means to an end?

Reciprocity implies an exchange based on a hierarchy of power.
The superior owes the inferior just as much as its dependence on it demands. Need is the deciding factor.
When the superior is so superior as to have a minimal need in regards to the inferior then there is no responsibility present.

_________________
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: is there a superior race? Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:31 pm

Ephemeron wrote:
Globalization therefore in its true essence does not imply an end to diversity, only that the diverse parts co-operate in the interest of a whole.

There is no 'whole'; that itself is a globilization-myth. Present globalization is anti-hierarchical and that's unnatural.

Like Alain de Benoist said, you need to differentiate between Cultural globalization and Economic globalization.
Today's time, the latter itself has become a culture. Money and finance itself has become an ends in itself and a culture of its own.
An authentic global imperialism Creates diversity and not just preserves it; whether Rome or Greece or India of antiquity acculturated and nourished the the local cultures with their excess and creativity.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :
As far as the topic, superiority implies responsibility and since all relationships are debt based, the question then is what responsibilities does a superior race have?

Ensuring that the best of its own members flourish to the maximum.

_________________
[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
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:42 pm

Satyr wrote:
In what way is the superior responsible for the inferior if the latter only functions as a means to an end?

To answer that question one would have to know what that end is. All means lead to the same end only people go about it in different ways. This being complete freedom of thought and so action- unlimited activity. We avoid with great effort anything that we do not want to do in favor of that which we do.

We may use nature’s resources and even other men as a means to this end as long as we do not treat them only as means but also as an end in themselves. This is not because we expect a return for our actions but because they are ends we may conclude that they have purpose as individuals.

Quote :
Reciprocity implies an exchange based on a hierarchy of power.
The superior owes the inferior just as much as its dependence on it demands. Need is the deciding factor.
When the superior is so superior as to have a minimal need in regards to the inferior then there is no responsibility present.


The absence of dependence is not sufficient proof for a lack of responsibility. The parent/infant relationship contradicts this as a parent is not dependant on the infant but is none the less responsible for it.

Lyssa wrote:


There is no 'whole'; that itself is a globilization-myth. Present globalization is anti-hierarchical and that's unnatural.

I wouldn't go so far as to say either.

Quote :
Like Alain de Benoist said, you need to differentiate between Cultural globalization and Economic globalization.
Today's time, the latter itself has become a culture. Money and finance itself has become an ends in itself and a culture of its own.
Money and wealth is a means to an end and as said above, all ends amount to the same primary goal in life- unlimited activity, nobody pursues wealth for any other reason than this.

Quote :
Ensuring that the best of its own members flourish to the maximum.

Isn't that responsibility relegated to the state/nation?












Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:20 am

Ephemeron wrote:

Satyr wrote:
In what way is the superior responsible for the inferior if the latter only functions as a means to an end?

To answer that question one would have to know what that end is.
the "end" is a projection. In this case of the superior.
Another term for this projection is: Ideal.

The inferior adheres to this Ideal.

Ephemeron wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Reciprocity implies an exchange based on a hierarchy of power.
The superior owes the inferior just as much as its dependence on it demands. Need is the deciding factor.
When the superior is so superior as to have a minimal need in regards to the inferior then there is no responsibility present.


The absence of dependence is not sufficient proof for a lack of responsibility. The parent/infant relationship contradicts this as a parent is not dependant on the infant but is none the less responsible for it.
You've failed to account for the most fundamental aspect of reproduction: mortality.
The parent is indeed dependent on the child, because the child is the parent's only chance to save a part of himself/herself from the inevitability of death.

In this case you can see this hierarchy shift in time.
In the beginning when the child is still young and the parent is still unsure if it will survive and not much has been invested yet, the child is subordinate to the parent.
Later a reversal occurs, as the parent now is becoming more dependent on the child and has invested much time and energy upon it.








[/quote]

_________________
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: is there a superior race? Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:37 pm

Ephemeron wrote:


Lyssa wrote:


There is no 'whole'; that itself is a globilization-myth. Present globalization is anti-hierarchical and that's unnatural.

I wouldn't go so far as to say either.

Current globalism dominates by espousing and promoting anti-hierarchical values - equality and uniformity in all fields from gender blurring to faith. It is not only unnatural, it is also anti-natural. Current globalism or secular humanism, etc. is simply an extension of judeo-xt. values that have the denial of nature as their very basis.

Ephemeron wrote:
Money and wealth is a means to an end and as said above, all ends amount to the same primary goal in life- unlimited activity, nobody pursues wealth for any other reason than this.

This 'unlimited activity' differs qualitatively from culture to culture. See Bataille 'The Accursed Share';

"The Accursed Share presents a new economic theory, which Bataille calls "general economy," as distinct from the "restricted" economic perspective of most economic theory. Thus, in the theoretical introduction, Bataille writes the following:
I will simply state, without waiting further, that the extension of economic growth itself requires the overturning of economic principles—the overturning of the ethics that grounds them. Changing from the perspectives of restrictive economy to those of general economy actually accomplishes a Copernican transformation: a reversal of thinking—and of ethics. If a part of wealth (subject to a rough estimate) is doomed to destruction or at least to unproductive use without any possible profit, it is logical, even inescapable, to surrender commodities without return. Henceforth, leaving aside pure and simple dissipation, analogous to the construction of the Pyramids, the possibility of pursuing growth is itself subordinated to giving: The industrial development of the entire world demands of Americans that they lucidly grasp the necessity, for an economy such as theirs, of having a margin of profitless operations. An immense industrial network cannot be managed in the same way that one changes a tire... It expresses a circuit of cosmic energy on which it depends, which it cannot limit, and whose laws it cannot ignore without consequences. Woe to those who, to the very end, insist on regulating the movement that exceeds them with the narrow mind of the mechanic who changes a tire.

Thus according to Bataille's theory of consumption, the accursed share is that excessive and non-recuperable part of any economy which is destined to one of two modes of economic and social expenditure. This must either be spent luxuriously and knowingly without gain in the arts, in non-procreative sexuality, in spectacles and sumptuous monuments, or it is obliviously destined to an outrageous and catastrophic outpouring, in the contemporary age most often in war, or in former ages as destructive and ruinous acts of giving or sacrifice, but always in a manner that threatens the prevailing system.

The notion of "excess" energy is central to Bataille's thinking. Bataille's inquiry takes the superabundance of energy, beginning from the infinite outpouring of solar energy or the surpluses produced by life's basic chemical reactions, as the norm for organisms. In other words, an organism in Bataille's general economy, unlike the rational actors of classical economy who are motivated by scarcity, normally has an "excess" of energy available to it. This extra energy can be used productively for the organism's growth or it can be lavishly expended. Bataille insists that an organism's growth or expansion always runs up against limits and becomes impossible. The wasting of this energy is "luxury". The form and role luxury assumes in a society are characteristic of that society. "The accursed share" refers to this excess, destined for waste."

Modern Globalism channels this 'unlimited activity' into unproductive culture-less activities that only bear a 'semblance' of a culture.
Eg. - what Baudrillard says on Disneyland as simulated city.
“One has never said better how much "humanism", "normality", "quality of life" were nothing but the vicissitudes of profitability.”
[Simulacra and Simulation]

It is the endless circulation of money for money's sake. That's what the American Debt it.

"Work and Boredom. Looking for work in order to be paid; in civilized countries today almost all men are at one in doing that. For all of them work is a means and not an end in itself. Hence they are not very refined in their choice of work, if only it pays well. But there are, if only rarely, men who would rather perish than work without any pleasure in their work. They are choosy, hard to satisfy, and do not care for ample rewards. Artists and contemplative men of all kinds belong to this rare breed, but so do even those men of leisure who spend their lives hunting, traveling, or in love affairs and adventures. All of these desire work and misery if only it is associated with pleasure, and the hardest, most difficult work if necessary. Otherwise, their idleness is resolute, even if it spells impoverishment, dishonor, and danger to life and limb. They do not fear boredom as much as work without pleasure; they actually require a lot of boredom if their work is to succeed. For thinkers and all sensitive spirits, boredom is that disagreeable “windless calm” of the soul that precedes a happy voyage and cheerful winds. They have to bear it and must wait for its effect on them. Precisely this is what lesser natures cannot achieve by any means. To ward off boredom at any cost is vulgar, no less than work without pleasure. Perhaps Asians are distinguished above Europeans by a capacity for longer, deeper calm; even their opiates have a slow effect and require patience, as opposed to the disgusting suddenness of the European poison, alcohol." [Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom]

Whatever current global 'cult-ure' is, it simply translates to 'money power' at the bottom. Acc. to it, a nation is only as viable and 'superior' as its daily fluctuating stock-index. The reduction of everything to quantity.

Not every globalization translates to this. See Spengler 'Decline of the West', which documents and compares 8 high global cultures.

Ephemeron wrote:

Lyssa>Ensuring that the best of its own members flourish to the maximum.

Isn't that responsibility relegated to the state/nation?

I'm a racialist and I see no break between state/nation and race. 'O.R.I.O.N - Our race IS our nation.'

The state must exist to promote the development of superior elements of its race because that is how I contextualize 'superior'. A race is superior because of the genius of its rare few elites that define, sculpt, innovate and maximize the creative potential of its pool, enrich its cultural history. To pronounce itself superior, a superior race [through the state] must therefore set the production and culling of its best elements that define its superiority as its Highest Responsibility. Loyalty and Responisbility must first be towards one's Own Self. Self-reverence is the high point of a noble art of living, and the Form of a grand-Politics.

_________________
[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
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:25 am

Satyr wrote:
You've failed to account for the most fundamental aspect of reproduction: mortality.
The parent is indeed dependent on the child, because the child is the parent's only chance to save a part of himself/herself from the inevitability of death.

I don't think it is need that necessitates this relationship but something else- fear. Fear is the determining factor of responsibility. Where there is no fear, there is no responsibility. In the case of children, our responsibilities are not derived from what we need from them, but from the fear of how their neglect will affect us.

and this is well supported with what you said here-

Quote :
In this case you can see this hierarchy shift in time.
In the beginning when the child is still young and the parent is still unsure if it will survive and not much has been invested yet, the child is subordinate to the parent.
Later a reversal occurs, as the parent now is becoming more dependent on the child and has invested much time and energy upon it.

Some additional thoughts:

Need also implies a lack and the above analogy depicts this lack among humans as a fear of living on and a need for immortality.

This though is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether a part of me survives after I die. As death is the dissolution of the I –consciousness/essence. If the ego does not endure after death then the mortal concerns of passing on ones blood lines is insubstantial.

Further, procreation is reduced to a means to an end in this case, preservation. But as an act of creation, having children is an end worthy in itself but certainly not the highest end.

On the other hand, essence is eternal. We can see that dissolution is nothing but the passing of essence into that of sustenance. Through this we can know that nothing perishes and all needs which emanate from lack and fear are founded on the uncertainties that surround whether it is more preferable to or not to be.




Lyssa wrote:
Current globalism dominates by espousing and promoting anti-hierarchical values
equality and uniformity in all fields from gender blurring to faith.

Merit and talent are the only true aristocratic values and I fail to see how these are acknowledged less today than in the past. This is not to imply that they are more frequent today only that where they exist by their very nature they can not be ignored.

Quote :
Current globalism or secular humanism, etc. is simply an extension of judeo-xt. values that have the denial of nature as their very basis

I am also unsure the prevailing attitude today is a denial of nature, in fact I find ample proof of the contrary as a great deal of emphasis is placed on the responsibilities we have to the natural world and its future generations. I also am of the sort that believe that there is a measure of truth to all ideologies and I am not interested in disproving one system or the other on the other hand, what is of worth should be separated from what is not.

Quote :
This 'unlimited activity' differs qualitatively from culture to culture.

That is a good point, good article too.

Unlimited does not mean unceasing only that there are no contradictions between what one wants to do and is doing nor are there limits which impose or impede an action be it creative or leisurely. The action is not born from necessity or out of the desire of reward or fear of punishment but for its own sake as an end itself, to this man is free not as an end but as a means and he looses his freedom when he can not act accordingly.

Quote :
Whatever current global 'cult-ure' is, it simply translates to 'money power' at the bottom. Acc. to it, a nation is only as viable and 'superior' as its daily fluctuating stock-index. The reduction of everything to quantity.

Money is certainly part of it but you must realize that all money is, is a means. A current if you will that can take us either here or there and to be in the current is activity. Those outside of it are always going to despise it, but will be the first to utilize it as a means to achieve their end.

Lyssa wrote:
I'm a racialist and I see no break between state/nation and race. 'O.R.I.O.N - Our race IS our nation.'

In the sense that race is confined by political borders or does it surpass them?


Last edited by Ephemeron on Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:57 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Additional thoughts)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:07 pm

Considering superior and inferior we are talking of greater and lesser. Try as we may, we can think of no instances where there is total independence. To a degree, all superior and inferior relationships are reciprocal. The debt that the superior owes the inferior is proportionate to this dependence, yes but never does one have an existence separate from the other. Never is the superior absent of responsibilities to the inferior.

In the body, the heart is supported by the arteries, veins and capillaries and has its function affected in relation to theirs. The central nervous system is reliant on the periphery sense organs and is useless without them.

Rivers, streams and tributaries feed into seas and oceans. Trees, consist of superior and inferior branches and roots which all are interdependent in the perfectibility of the whole.

We imitate this model with our main highways and thruways which are dependent on the lesser roads and byways. The transitions seen in electricity and plumbing conduits also portray this and allow for the most efficient transfer of energy.

While we can agree that the diameter of a small conductor can not support the same capacity of flow that a large one will (the converse being equally absurd) neither can maximize their potential without the other. Thus it is that there can be no increase in the function of the stronger, without increasing the capabilities of the weaker.

If the relation that a part has to a whole is the basis of its activity and function then it must be true that the individual is to direct its loyalties from the immediate- outward. Yet this activity must not only tend to the immediate unity it can never be detrimental to those above it.

This is the answer of responsibility concerning a superior race so that when François Fénelon said,

“I love my family more than myself; more than my family my fatherland; more than my fatherland humankind.”

He was thinking as correctly as he possibly could and in acknowledging this hierarchy of responsibilities was not lost in a maze of contradictions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:30 pm

The responsibility of the superior towards the inferior has been discussed by Socrates, for one, and is part of the discussion.

Man does not wish o harm all animals he is superior in intelligence to....but neither does he wish to be one of them or to mix with them genetically.

The very idea of humankind is a mythology, a gross over-generalization.
Why not go further with the rhetoric and say:
"I love my family more than myself; more than my family my fatherland; more than my fatherland humankind; more than humankind animal kind; more than animal kind, life; more than life existence.”

Still one pays homage to the prey....which is what Thanksgiving was supposed to be.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:38 pm

Satyr wrote:
The responsibility of the superior towards the inferior has been discussed by Socrates, for one, and is part of the discussion.

Man does not wish o harm all animals he is superior in intelligence to....but neither does he wish to be one of them or to mix with them genetically.

In regards to this, what is permissible and what is not is well established by laws that define natural and un-natural.

Quote :
The very idea of humankind is a mythology, a gross over-generalization.

Biped is a gross over-generalization but humanity is that which is encompassed by general chemical and physical laws, so far as they are either restrictive or permissive in the common interest of the species. Some men are more or less human than others but none are beyond.

Quote :
Why not go further with the rhetoric and say:
"I love my family more than myself; more than my family my fatherland; more than my fatherland humankind; more than humankind animal kind; more than animal kind, life; more than life existence.”

Because humanity is the limit to what man can know. When Pope in his essay on man said

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man”

he was stating that the point of comprehension which all our faculties are directed to is man. For this reason we do not gauge life in terms of what is good for amoebas or stars.

Besides, were we to place existence at the top, do we not run into a conflict of interest? Such a man must love only himself as love for family and fatherland exist only so much as they would gain him a few more minutes of life and he would no sooner turn on them to spare himself.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:29 am

Ephemeron wrote:
Satyr wrote:
The responsibility of the superior towards the inferior has been discussed by Socrates, for one, and is part of the discussion.
Man does not wish o harm all animals he is superior in intelligence to....but neither does he wish to be one of them or to mix with them genetically.

In regards to this, what is permissible and what is not is well established by laws that define natural and un-natural.
Laws are human ideas trying to define existence.
What is natural also entails violence, exploitation, cruelty, discrimination (primarily this).
Consciousness is discrimination. To be aware is to be aware of similarities and differences.
The differences are what define me as other than. The more aware of differences I am the more precise my conception of self is.
Consciousness evolved to discriminate....without it choice is impossible; natural selection means choosing.
There is no reason to be aware if we are all the same and one and whole and all differences are superficial.
This means that all life is a big joke some God is playing on us.
Consciousness evolved to discriminate, to tell apart, to perceive differences and to have a choice - to direct the will.

An ideal is a human construct which strives to escape or deny or control the natural.
The differences in motive are decisive.
I strive to control, you may strive to surrender. These motives are not irrelevant for they determine your world-view, your ideals and for this reason they identify you.

Ephemeron wrote:
Quote :
The very idea of humankind is a mythology, a gross over-generalization.

Biped is a gross over-generalization but humanity is that which is encompassed by general chemical and physical laws, so far as they are either restrictive or permissive in the common interest of the species. Some men are more or less human than others but none are beyond.
Human beings are advancing beyond genetic identifications...they are called memes.
Memes are continuations of genes.

If you accept the idea that all is changing, all is in flux, and that all is fragmenting (chaos, increasing entropy) then the same holds true for your conception of humanity.
In a modern age where man has dominated most of the major threats to his immediate existence (predation, outside viral, hunger, shelter etc.) he no longer clings to the generality of sexual reproduction to find shelter against a threatening world, trying to deal with mortality.
Now the predators are human, not some other species.
The designation of species, and genetic similarities, is losing relevance outside the fact that genes are the past manifesting as memes.
Memes (ideals, spirituality, beliefs, identifications) are a consequence of particular genes. This is why different cultures emerged in different parts of the world.

Memes are replacing or enhancing genes.
Some memes (nihilistic ones) try to eradicate, dismiss, deny, forget about genes....others, like mine, try to embrace, control, dominate and direct them.
This is where the masculine strives to dominate the feminine...not deny it or abuse it but control it - primarily in self.

This internal fragmentation is resulting in a division along idealistic (memetic) lines.
It's not enough for man to have children anymore. He communing with some "humans" would be like Tarzan finding the apes sufficient for his self-identification and his mental hunger.
This is particularly true for females who serve as genetic/memetic filters.
When females choose to reproduce Negroes they choose to replicate the basest, the most primal, form of man.
When they choose to reproduce with a superficial twat, they choose to replicate materialism, hedonism, superficiality, stupidity.

He who controls female choice, female standards of measuring value, controls the destiny of man.
This will hold true up until man invents a machine that would make females obsolete, as men have become.

Ephemeron wrote:
Quote :
Why not go further with the rhetoric and say:
"I love my family more than myself; more than my family my fatherland; more than my fatherland humankind; more than humankind animal kind; more than animal kind, life; more than life existence.”

Because humanity is the limit to what man can know. When Pope in his essay on man said

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man”

he was stating that the point of comprehension which all our faculties are directed to is man. For this reason we do not gauge life in terms of what is good for amoebas or stars.

A quote I've used many times:
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von wrote:
Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and always be, men and only men.
I think I'll take Goethe as superior to the Englishman Pope.

No, the limit to what a man can know is himself: know thyself.
Only through this self-knowledge does he know the other, whether this other is human, dog, cat, plant.

A dog not knowing much about itself can know very little of the other. It is reactive, guided by a genetic program it cannot but adhere to.
This is more true of a worm that knows nothing of self and so can never know anything about other; a purely intuitive, reactive, instinctive creature guided by a code, a genetic program.

That you consider the gross generalization of "human" as the highest point in your self-identification only shows how little you know yourself.
Worse than race and sex the species designation is even more general and simplistic.
You, in essence, associate yourself with a copulation and reproduction.
If you can fuck it and gestate it and impregnate it you are it.
If this is so then if you have a desire to erase your race and your sex as defining categories only exposes a hypocrisy on your part, for sex and race, no matter how generalizing they might be, are still less simplifying and generalizing than the concept of humanity.

In your case I sense a desire to simplify your identity. You do not seek more precision but less, because more precision would, obviously, make your life more complex and your mind more confused.
You do not want to Know Thyself but to Lose Thyself.
You want to lose yourself in a sea of humanity. You do not wish to stand apart, but to disappear within.
Very feminine.

Therefore, why not embrace the even more general concept of mammal...or living organism, as many have?
You are "more" than human you are mammal. Why discriminate between life-forms if remaining stuck on the general is comforting to you?
Now you can commune with your cat, your dog, a random cow....a sheep...a tree.
You can feel them in you.

That you choose human means that you identify with the sexual component...how base.
You cannot escape the gene, though you might profess to be above it.
If so, then you must also accept the fact that sex matters.
Human being is a biological category founded on procreation, therefore you must also accept the specialized forms of it: male/female, as being defining and decisive.

If you manage to do so, and you do not insist on remaining glued to the comfortable generalization of "human", then you must also accept as decisive and definite the outcome of these sexual interactions: Race is such an outcome....genetic divergence is such an outcome...speciation, partial or complete, is such an outcome.
That you conveniently remain "up there" on the periphery of self, only exposes your anxiety.

Ephemeron wrote:
Besides, were we to place existence at the top, do we not run into a conflict of interest? Such a man must love only himself as love for family and fatherland exist only so much as they would gain him a few more minutes of life and he would no sooner turn on them to spare himself.
See, here you are displaying an inability to read or to comprehend what you are reading.

I will repeat it again, though many accuse me of repeating myself:
To know yourself is to know your past. This includes the totality, or as much of it, that participated in you coming about.
You are not an accident.
You are the end result of (inter)actions, choices, environmental conditioning over thousands and thousands of years.

To accept and to love yourself is to love and accept this past.
All of it.
You cannot pick and choose what to accept and what to deny. But you can choose what to love and wish to associate with and what you prefer to nurture to its full potential.
Self is not contained within a temporal-spatial box that has as its outer border your birth and death.

You are the manifestation of your entire past, most notably and often neglected, the past that preceded your birth.
To be an egoist is to hold yourself accountable towards this past - do....you....get it?!!!

I, for one, refuse to associate myself with my base past.
I do not deny it, I try to control and direct it.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:28 pm

Satyr wrote:
Laws are human ideas trying to define existence.

They are boundaries. The ideas of men try to comprehend these boundaries to know the limitation of their motions.


Quote :
What is natural also entails violence, exploitation, cruelty, discrimination (primarily this).
Consciousness is discrimination. To be aware is to be aware of similarities and differences.

Discrimination is vital to judgments as a means of investigation, to know and in knowing to act as correctly as circumstances allow but not as an end, which leads to stupidity and bigotry.


Quote :
The differences are what define me as other than. The more aware of differences I am the more precise my conception of self is.
Consciousness evolved to discriminate....without it choice is impossible; natural selection means choosing.

A man is everything he is not. This then is the question- what is he not?

Quote :
An ideal is a human construct which strives to escape or deny or control the natural
.

Yes and there are no new ideas only new ways of expressing them, so man has been trying to escape and control the inescapable and uncontrollable for his entirety and hence the war of ideologies is redundant.
[quote]

Quote :
The differences in motive are decisive.
I strive to control, you may strive to surrender. These motives are not irrelevant for they determine your world-view, your ideals and for this reason they identify you.

To have control is to be free of impulses, to act and not be acted upon... which is an impossibility.

Quote :
If you accept the idea that all is changing, all is in flux, and that all is fragmenting (chaos, increasing entropy) then the same holds true for your conception of humanity.

There is force which we recognize as compulsive and impulsive and their point of convergence between the two is symbiotic. So that at any given time what passes is also arising. It makes no difference the minuteness or vastness of existence, consciousness will always appear to itself as infinitely everything as it is infinitely nothing.

To this I hold that divisions of men are particle to humanity and these particles are fluid and homogenous in structure and just like everything else are subject to these forces which determine shape and consistency.

Quote :
Memes are replacing or enhancing genes.

Yes, ideas influence men, this is nothing new.

Quote :
Some memes (nihilistic ones) try to eradicate, dismiss, deny, forget about genes....others, like mine, try to embrace, control, dominate and direct them.
This is where the masculine strives to dominate the feminine...not deny it or abuse it but control it - primarily in self.

Quote :
He who controls female choice, female standards of measuring value, controls the destiny of man.

Man can influence choice but he can not control it, indeed where ever men have attempted to the resulting backlash has proven more injurious.


Quote :
I think I'll take Goethe as superior to the Englishman Pope.


Goethe’s acknowledgment of an abstract concept such as mankind as men does not deny but affirms it. Pope and Goethe are saying the same thing, mankind is an aggregate of men and man can only know himself, “The proper study of mankind is man”.

Goethe was as complete a man as anyone could strive to be, Pope can not even stand in his shadow... but neither can many.

Quote :
That you consider the gross generalization of "human" as the highest point in your self-identification only shows how little you know yourself.


It is not the highest identification, nor is it the point of focus in the hierarchy. This is always the self, then the family, the community, the nation. We do not love humanity more than the self.

However a wish to be separate from the whole is be free from conditions. We do not strive to be free from them but to experience our lives within them to function not as automatons but as individuals and for this loyalty the condition is responsibility. Where this condition is not met, the contract is null.

Quote :
In your case I sense a desire to simplify your identity. You do not seek more precision but less, because more precision would, obviously, make your life more complex and your mind more confused.

The search for precision is the quest for exactness and lucidity. For this the mind is capable of both inductive and deductive thought. One reveals causes the other effects. There is no knowledge of general principles without examination of the specific nor is there any knowledge of the specific without first knowing of the general.

You do not want to Know Thyself but to Lose Thyself.

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

Quote :
Therefore, why not embrace the even more general concept of mammal...or living organism, as many have?

Humanity is an aggregate of heterogeneous elements, an increase in complexity. Beyond humanity would be a greater complexity of which the sum of humanity was experienced in one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:04 pm

Ephemeron wrote:
Discrimination is vital to judgments as a means of investigation, to know and in knowing to act as correctly as circumstances allow but not as an end, which leads to stupidity and bigotry.
An "end"?
To discriminate is to be aware of a difference, opening up choices.
These choices offer avenues for action.
One has no choice if one is not aware of a difference.
Wake up!
affraid

You are stuck on the negativity of the term "discriminate"; a true child of your time, you are, trapped in semantics and the emotions they evoke in you due to social engineering.
Break free from the programming and learn to use words without fearing them.

To discriminate is not to hate, no more than to assimilate is to love.
The "end" is to be able to discriminate as much as possible, because to be aware of nuances, subtlety, patterns of divergence, is to be aware.

The emotions are your problem not mine.

Ephemeron wrote:
A man is everything he is not. This then is the question- what is he not?
This is where discriminating awareness refines the process.
In the end, what he is not is what he chooses not to be like - to be unlike it.
I choose not to be like a dog. I choose to be more.

Because the ideal, the self, the absolute in whatever guise it takes, is the absent, a mind projects it...and then strives towards it.
The more precise, refined, the projection is all the more the mind knows what it wishes to be - it has a sense of self.
Because ideas, conceptions, ideals, are based no the past (experiences, knowledge) this projection is a projection of the past.

Ephemeron wrote:
Yes and there are no new ideas only new ways of expressing them, so man has been trying to escape and control the inescapable and uncontrollable for his entirety and hence the war of ideologies is redundant.
What a nihilistic stance. It screams resentment.

A warrior fights a losing battle because in his fight he gains his identity; he defines himself.
I choose to live, knowing I will inevitably die.

Each ideal defines the minds it attracts.
It is unattainable because then it would be a final end.
The Ideal is supposed to guide your becoming, not annul it.

Ephemeron wrote:
To have control is to be free of impulses, to act and not be acted upon... which is an impossibility.
Therefore all absolutes are impossible....and only attainable in degree.
One cannot be a God....but one can be a superior man.

All value judgments are based no comparisons...on juxtapositions, ergo based no awareness of divergence.

Ephemeron wrote:
There is force which we recognize as compulsive and impulsive and their point of convergence between the two is symbiotic. So that at any given time what passes is also arising. It makes no difference the minuteness or vastness of existence, consciousness will always appear to itself as infinitely everything as it is infinitely nothing.
The "something/nothing" is how you position yourself in existence.
When it remains undefined it remains as you call it, an ambiguity and its annulment.

When one is aware and Willful one projects an Ideal where the "some-thing" was.
Now the some-thing is no longer an unrefined ambiguity but becomes a mind's willful projection.
If there is no meaning...then let THIS be my meaning...and let IT define me as a man, as long as I live.

Ephemeron wrote:
To this I hold that divisions of men are particle to humanity and these particles are fluid and homogenous in structure and just like everything else are subject to these forces which determine shape and consistency.
All is fluid, tumbling towards chaos. The man, the masculine, chooses order: projects it, defines it and lives by it.
A man is an ordering agent in the disordering storm.
Life is an ordering in the flux.

Ephemeron wrote:
Yes, ideas influence men, this is nothing new.
Nothing is new...but men resist or do not understand, so one must repeat it.
Nothing is new because we are the sum of our past. it's the combination which makes it different...not new.

But you pass over the meme from gene knowledge as if it were irrelevant.
In the same way a gene defines you as a homo sapient so does a meme define one as noble or ignoble, a slave or a master, a mind that embraces life or one that flees from it, a male or a female...a conscious and self-conscious human or a, dumb, instinctive cowering, animal.

Ephemeron wrote:
Man can influence choice but he can not control it, indeed where ever men have attempted to the resulting backlash has proven more injurious.
Man can only control himself...and then only incompletely.
You are stuck in your modernism.
To control is not to control an other...or life or existence or nature. To be a master is to be master of yourself; to be a male dominating the female is to dominate the female in yourself.
This strength attracts those weaker than it.
For example, once you gain control of the feminine in you, the female otherness will find this seductive...not knowing why.
She will smell it on you...just as a man would see your self-mastery and perceive you as a master, if he is your inferior in this regard.
True power attracts without meaning to...it does not reach, for this is an expression of weakness.

The strong exudes power, in relation to what is weaker than it.
This cannot be faked.
A massive planet attract bodies without meaning to.

Ephemeron wrote:
Goethe’s acknowledgment of an abstract concept such as mankind as men does not deny but affirms it. Pope and Goethe are saying the same thing, mankind is an aggregate of men and man can only know himself, “The proper study of mankind is man”.

Goethe was as complete a man as anyone could strive to be, Pope can not even stand in his shadow... but neither can many.
You are fawning.
Get a hold of yourself.

If all is different, but we choose to seek the similar as a way of understanding it, then what is called mankind is as fragmented as any other category...and only one who sees nuances and details and can discriminate can see the divergences and choose to not relate self with some aspects of it.

If an chimp can discriminate between gorilla and human then an aware man can discriminate between types of men, whereas a less aware man sees the same everywhere.
The opposite, the road towards decreasing awareness, less discrimination, is the road towards "progressive" uniformity. All men become alike; then all primates become alike; then all mammals become alike; then all organisms become alike; then all existence becomes alike.
The uniformity of nothingness. There are no distinctions...all is leveled down and made alike: the same, uniform, bland.
The "alike" can be based on a weak perception or on fear or on the slightest similarity blown into extraordinary proportions, when the different no matter how large is minimized and disregarded.
The fearful mind, driven by anxiety, in its haste to make the alien otherness less threatening or mysterious or uncertain....finds the smallest similarity to itself and then blows it into a relieving all encompassing unifying concept. No matter how glaring the differences will, be how obvious he will always minimize them, choosing to focus and inflate the similarities to make the other more intimate, and so less frightening.

This is a description of absolute chaos: the state of total fragmentation where all becomes possible, and no order is anywhere present: no matter, no types, no qualities...no life, no consciousness.
In Buddhism they call it emptiness. The absolute void. This is what I call the projection of feminine nihilism.
In a feminized system, a Judeo-Christian one, this is the Ideal. Progress is a leveling down of all distinctions; it is the destruction of all that resists chaos....all forms of order, all masculinity.

Ephemeron wrote:
It is not the highest identification, nor is it the point of focus in the hierarchy. This is always the self, then the family, the community, the nation. We do not love humanity more than the self.

However a wish to be separate from the whole is be free from conditions.
In other words, free from nature: free from the determining past.
Your love of family is hypocritical.
They are a condition which determines you. Too bad you cannot selectively pick and choose how and how much.
If you feel ashamed of your past, that's your problem, not mine.

Ephemeron wrote:
We do not strive to be free from them but to experience our lives within them to function not as automatons but as individuals and for this loyalty the condition is responsibility. Where this condition is not met, the contract is null.
An individual is another one of those empty modern words. It is usually used by those who are the most uniform and subjugated to the uniformity.
The most bland and dull always claim their right to be "unique" as being innate.

An individual is the sum of his past (nature). In other words, he is his family.
His ancestors, his ancestry, whether he likes it or not, whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, are manifest in his presence.

"Free from them" means a castration of self. It is a false freedom, since nobody can escape the determining, immutable, past; one can only deal with it, and adjust and try to improve what the past has wrought.
Freedom is not an absolute...it is a degree.
I can never be completely independent, but only more or less so in relation to an other.
I do not wish to be free form the world, but free from others. Humans are not reality...in fact they create environments which are often artificial, and contrary to reality.

But those who succumb to the illusion that they can be free from the past (from nature), are the very ones who make themselves vulnerable to the immediate.
It is the one who forgets his past, denies it, rejects it, dismisses it, who becomes a ready victim of whatever identity the system, the immediate otherness, offers him as a replacement.

You see this all around the western world.
The culture of no culture (Americanism, Globalization) is tearing people away from their past, their heritage, their nature. They then cling to the first thing that offers them an identity: materialism, hedonism, nihilistic spirituality, fantasy, or they become disillusioned, desperate, lost, turning to drugs and alcohol and escapism - entertaining themselves to death.
They remain child-like, infantile...immature, with little or no sense of self. They pass their days distracting themselves...calling this individuality.
They claim to be independent when they are the ones whoa re the most dependent. They are so because their state of delusion, of eternal infancy, is made possible by a system that protects them from a world, from a natural world, that does not give a shit about their preference and dreams and hopes.

Ephemeron wrote:
The search for precision is the quest for exactness and lucidity. For this the mind is capable of both inductive and deductive thought. One reveals causes the other effects. There is no knowledge of general principles without examination of the specific nor is there any knowledge of the specific without first knowing of the general.
Begin by letting go of your life-raft: humanity.
Be more precise...more specific with your self-identification.

One does not know the general before one studies the particular and finds pattern in it.
The general is not known...it is assumed, theorized, by using the specific.
Grow the fuck up.

Ephemeron wrote:
You do not want to Know Thyself but to Lose Thyself.
You are already lost.

The only self you want to know is the one that began with your birth.
You think this makes you free...when it is only freedom from self-knowledge.

See how you wish to immerse yourself in the general one moment and then cling to the contradiction of your individuality.

If you wish to be free, then stop calling yourself human, or male, or a mammal. This too is a remnant of a past you despise.
Be truly individual and be an It.
Try reinventing yourself as a phoenix....reborn every day, but unlike the phoenix you can be some-thing different every time.
If you cannot then try something less novel: forget.
Be like a fish, swimming in the river Lethe...with a short memory. When you see your reflection be amazed every time....let go of your past every single day.
Live in the moment...be retarded, an animal. Forget experience and knowledge, this is memory which determines you...be an imbecile....be reborn again, and again.
You are well on your way.

Ephemeron wrote:
Humanity is an aggregate of heterogeneous elements, an increase in complexity. Beyond humanity would be a greater complexity of which the sum of humanity was experienced in one.
Then go further.
Be an animal. Experience the oneness of organic life.

Humanity is the sum of aggregate elements that get distributed, in time, throughout the population with reproduction.
Sex is what binds mankind into one...nothing more mystical than that.
This is why it is funny that females and males wish to escape their sexual roles yet retain their common humanity.
Without sex there is no humanity.

Sever this copulating mixing, and you get increasing diversity within the population...in time splintering off.

Increase in complexity is chaos.
Because the compexity being produced by fragmentation cannot be processed by the human mind it calls it chaos.
Fragmentation increases (inter)activity, which increases possibility. Possibility is another term for space....and space is expanding.
Time is the measurement of this increase in compexity; it is this fragmentation...or this spatial expansion, veering towards a cold dark, future of uniform nothing.

Matter is a state of ordering resisting fragmentation/disordering....life is a self-perpetuating, self-correcting, form of this resistance.
Ergo humanity is an ordering...and a resiting to compexity.
The "higher" up you get in order the less complexity you get.
Absolute order, a singularity would be no possibilities...a point. No space-time.

Right after the Big Bang the 4 forces of nature (Strong Force, Weak Force, Electromagnetic Force, Gravitational Force) were one.
Less complex.
As entropy increased they fragmented. They are continuously fragmenting...but not at a rate that would make life impossible.
The electromagnetic force will split into the magnetic and electric force....increasing complexity.

In going back towards the near-absolute point, which the Big Bang represents (a theoretical point, event), we are going back to more order, we are looking back towards the near-absolute (God)....and so less complexity.
We imagine it to be a singularity, when in fact existence shows that it is not, since it is not completed. We feel it in ourselves this incompleteness, as need.
Since the past cannot be altered we call this projected God "immutable". Since this past determines us, we call it Creator.
But we are confused, as to why this "goodness" (light, order, heat) could allow the evil (negative, chaos, entropy, darkness, coldness).
We are confused because we are confusing our mental models (abstractions) which necessitate the simplification/generalization of existence into thingness (dualism: something/nothing...binary logic: 1/0) for reality.

The Big Bang is a mental construct...not a beginning...and not a singularity.
If it is anything then it is an ongoing event.
The projection forward is also a human abstraction. No absolute chaos will ever be reached.
Near-absolute chaos would be a state of such fragmentation that possibility (space) would be approaching the infinite, making (inter)actions so complex as to be rendered random - absolute randomness is absolute chaos.

Some project into the future a consciousness, a unconscious consciousness...a void that is aware, trying to retain the elements of existence they like and enjoy, while doing away with all the nasty, undesirable, stuff.
So, they project, imagine, a coming uniform nothingness, immersed in some "higher conscious Being", in effect contradicting the very experience of existence, which is a perpetual Becoming.
To accomplish this they imagine themselves "outside" the space-time continuum, looking "down" upon it from some "beyond". They call this imagined, "unity" a universe or a whole.
In essence they posit a supernatural constriction to existence: a primary, first cause which is not caused itself.
This fantasy, fantastic, state is called by many names: paradise, utopia, nirvana etc.
Just as in paradise consciousness, the product of evolution and need, is cut-off from its necessity and placed in a realm where it is not required yet still persists.

This is called selective-reasoning, compartmentalization, schizophrenia, religious fanaticism: the ability to hold two contradictory concepts in mind simultaneously without feelnig troubled.
This is a form of schizophrenia. The mind splits itself in two...one set of rules apply in one side and another, totally contradictory ones, in the other.

Another way this is expressed in modernity is with this exclusion of humanity from nature. What applies to animals or to nature in general does not apply to humans.
Therefore, if I can judge a creature or a fruit or a stone on appearances, I cannot do so with humans. If disparity, and competition and violence is the rule in nature it is not in humanity. If exploitation, cruelty, viciousness, rape, are common in animal behavior they are not, or should not, be in human behavior: the thuo shalt not...
Animals die and go nowhere, man dies and goes to heaven...or ascends to some higher plane of existence.
All is ephemeral except the human soul.
All is simple except man; man is far too complex to categorize, manipulate, exploit, direct, seduce....

geek

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



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1043
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:56 am

Satyr wrote:
The "alike" can be based on a weak perception or on fear or on the slightest similarity blown into extraordinary proportions, when the different no matter how large is minimized and disregarded.
The fearful mind, driven by anxiety, in its haste to make the alien otherness less threatening or mysterious or uncertain....finds the smallest similarity to itself and then blows it into a relieving all encompassing unifying concept. No matter how glaring the differences will, be how obvious he will always minimize them, choosing to focus and inflate the similarities to make the other more intimate, and so less frightening.

Is rationality the only defining aspect of yourself or is there something(s) about you which you consider separate but just as essential?
Courage? Strength? Stamina?
That must be so.
What I find interesting is what you have hidden - those aspects you don't so freely talk about.
Do you use weaknesses (things humans hide whenever possible) to define yourself further or is there a hidden strength you're not letting many know about?
I do not think it would be the former, as you don't seem too fond of associating yourself (and claim that you try not to) with weakness.
Among those you include in your club, what differentiates you?

What even inspired this response is that I finally found something that I could (potentially) use to feel comfortable with everything or most that you've shed light on. It was not that you were male, human, or any such things - but an idea. I had come to the realization 6-7 years ago that expectation was responsible for negative/positive emotion. It was one of my proudest achievements, the result from a lot of suffering. I was able to "pair" (or possibly so) something I was very proud of with ideas you've had to do with consciousness. The connections were that one cannot expect something without being conscious and the more that one expects, the more conscious they are (or appear to be) and that expectation was interlinked with consciousness in what you revealed about one who is not conscious will not fear things that others would.

Yeah, it's a way to appease my anxiety. Shame felt about that may be justified, but at the same time, what I quoted of your post is something humans do regardless, no? Being aware of it does not change it as an aspect of yourself, it only allows you to lessen its control. If it is to nigh insignificance that you've reduced this, I still have a lot to learn, if I am even capable...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:31 am

Slaughtz wrote:
Satyr wrote:
The "alike" can be based on a weak perception or on fear or on the slightest similarity blown into extraordinary proportions, when the different no matter how large is minimized and disregarded.
The fearful mind, driven by anxiety, in its haste to make the alien otherness less threatening or mysterious or uncertain....finds the smallest similarity to itself and then blows it into a relieving all encompassing unifying concept. No matter how glaring the differences will, be how obvious he will always minimize them, choosing to focus and inflate the similarities to make the other more intimate, and so less frightening.

Is rationality the only defining aspect of yourself or is there something(s) about you which you consider separate but just as essential?
Courage? Strength? Stamina?
I try to live by the Aristocratic ethos.

Slaughtz wrote:
That must be so.
What I find interesting is what you have hidden - those aspects you don't so freely talk about.
Do you use weaknesses (things humans hide whenever possible) to define yourself further or is there a hidden strength you're not letting many know about?
I do not think it would be the former, as you don't seem too fond of associating yourself (and claim that you try not to) with weakness.
I expose my weaknesses towards those that have exposed theirs.
Claiming to be humble and selfless while holding onto the most arrogant position of all, is hypocrisy.
Towards hypocrites, I pretend.
Satyr is the mask I use to have that option.

Slaughtz wrote:
Among those you include in your club, what differentiates you?
I do not evaluate myself openly.
I am crass and blunt only towards the base, the simple, the animals.
When I do so in other f0rums amongst the herd, i do so to cause a stir, to make the emotions rise, so that they expose themselves behind the pretense of civility and humility and selflessness.

I've already stated that all value judgments are comparisons...and all comparisons are a matter of degree.
What differentiates me is the same thing that differentiates you....degree.
Degree in all areas.

Slaughtz wrote:
What even inspired this response is that I finally found something that I could (potentially) use to feel comfortable with everything or most that you've shed light on. It was not that you were male, human, or any such things - but an idea. I had come to the realization 6-7 years ago that expectation was responsible for negative/positive emotion. It was one of my proudest achievements, the result from a lot of suffering. I was able to "pair" (or possibly so) something I was very proud of with ideas you've had to do with consciousness. The connections were that one cannot expect something without being conscious and the more that one expects, the more conscious they are (or appear to be) and that expectation was interlinked with consciousness in what you revealed about one who is not conscious will not fear things that others would.
There is a fine line between genius and madness.

This is why a very few can peer into the abyss.

To see more is not only to expect more but to be confronted with possibilities.
This can be overwhelming...and this is why many of these brilliant minds sought out solitude. It was a way of decreasing the possibilities so that they might find peace.
Some of them broke from it.
Awareness on this level is actually detrimental to survival.

Slaughtz wrote:
Yeah, it's a way to appease my anxiety. Shame felt about that may be justified, but at the same time, what I quoted of your post is something humans do regardless, no? Being aware of it does not change it as an aspect of yourself, it only allows you to lessen its control. If it is to nigh insignificance that you've reduced this, I still have a lot to learn, if I am even capable...
To understand something is to de-romanticize it...to de-mystify it.
For some life becomes bland...for the few there is too much mystery to give a shit about animal behavior.

Demystifying love, sex, male/female is insignificant in comparison to the unknown.

Power is to be indifferent.
You care less about what has the least effect upon you.
The master/slave relationship is resolved by indifference.
Master and Salve relate upon the common ground of need.
It is the need, the sensation of the inner absence, which makes them interdependence.

A God (theoretically) would be One who lacks Need...no dependence....ergo totally indifferent.
This is why this christian, caring, loving God is a self-contradicting concept.
Not even consciousness is necessary when one is perfect.
Consciousness evolves to service needs. It is a product of an absence of perfection. It is an ordering in the disordering.

The only way around this is to project this deity, using the imagination, in some "outside" state: beyond, above etc.
In effect you are taking it "out" of existence to justify its existence....because it contradicts all experience.

Take Ephemeron....
He is a Top<> Down thinker.

He reluctantly accepts the superiority of the empirical, scientific method of Bottom<>UP thinking...but only selectively. He cannot let go of the Top<>Down delusion.

He must presume an end...a whole, a God, an absolute, to make the immediate, the specific, palatable.
He cannot take only the specific and project it upwards...or towards the unknown.

Bottom<>Up thinking is a bit misleading, since there is no bottom and no up.....we exist in some middle ground where we are the bottom.
Macro and Micro are projections from it. Man takes the known, the perceived and extrapolates the unknown.
The fearful, the weak, the needy, project a known then work backwards from it....trying to justify the perceived without losing the presumed known.

Judeo-Christians are a good example of minds that do this.
They begin with a projection of a known...a self-evident thing, an absolute...then they work to explain the sensual, the experienced, within the framework this projected self-evident known places them within.
A box they must think within.

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

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1521
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:04 pm

Black Invention Myths
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:49 pm

Satyr wrote:
The "end" is to be able to discriminate as much as possible, because to be aware of nuances, subtlety, patterns of divergence, is to be aware.

Discriminating as much as possible is a means. When it becomes an end, is when the discrimination reaches an end as in the generalities of those which discriminate only so far but not far enough.

Quote :
A warrior fights a losing battle because in his fight he gains his identity; he defines himself.
I choose to live, knowing I will inevitably die.

We all choose life because death, despite all pretenses and romances, is an unknown domain. Fear of this unknown compels life.

The warrior overcomes this fear and fights a loosing battle only when he believes death can not kill him. As soon as he believes otherwise, he fights to preserve life.

B
Quote :
ut you pass over the meme from gene knowledge as if it were irrelevant.

More relevant is the mechanism of mind and the role the mental plays in validating information and directing behavior and how all ideas are partially true but only those which pass through this mental filter influence behavior.

Quote :
If an chimp can discriminate between gorilla and human then an aware man can discriminate between types of men, whereas a less aware man sees the same everywhere

To discriminate is to favor a preference, but no two preferences will be the same, this would tend to uniformity. What you mean to say is that you favor a uniformity of taste, which can only arise from a limitation of experience, which is contradictory to becoming.

Quote :
This is a description of absolute chaos: the state of total fragmentation where all becomes possible, and no order is anywhere present: no matter, no types, no qualities...no life, no consciousness.

There are boundaries which prohibit all absolute states. Each state flows into the other through gradual change, we do not go from extreme chaos to extreme order without passing through intermediate states and this is the fluidity you are correct to acknowledge.

Quote :
An individual is the sum of his past (nature). In other words, he is his family.
His ancestors, his ancestry, whether he likes it or not, whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, are manifest in his presence.

The sum of ones past is merely a potential, one may not reach or surpass. Man is unique in his ability to consciously overcome both his genetic lineage and his environment.

Quote :
All is fluid, tumbling towards chaos. The man, the masculine, chooses order: projects it, defines it and lives by it.
A man is an ordering agent in the disordering storm.

The primary object of order in systems is to affect the greatest degree of inner stability and still retain sufficient outward motion. Therefore, boundaries are the only ordering agents, the female womb is a boundary, anything that contains or traps motion and directs and or increases it. These are conduits, bodies, laws, river beds ect.

Disorder is the absence of boundaries which is the consequence of instituting arbitrary ones which artificially impedes outward motion. A damn is such a boundary which holds back the surge of a river and increases the potential disorder when it gives, state borders another, castes another, lies yet another. None of these man imposed borders are sufficient in their intended aims and are detrimental to stability.

Quote :
To control is not to control an other...or life or existence or nature. To be a master is to be master of yourself; to be a male dominating the female is to dominate the female in yourself.


Male and female are appropriately positive and negative, one projects outward the other draws inward. All disproportions demand corrections, males which suppress the negative energies of the female are corrected by those which release them. The "feminization of man" is not coherent until it is understood as a counter movement from one extreme state to another.

Quote :
If all is different, but we choose to seek the similar as a way of understanding it, then what is called mankind is as fragmented as any other category...and only one who sees nuances and details and can discriminate can see the divergences and choose to not relate self with some aspects of it.

Yet you say that man is an ordering agent, if so, how can his nature not favor integration? From the union of community, he establishes towns, cities and nations, from the division of nations, ethnicities and races. From these he will establish international unions. So long as his principle nature is objectified towards composition it will be inclusive rather than exclusive and arbitrary rather than natural.

Quote :
The general is not known...it is assumed, theorized, by using the specific.

General is understood to be less specific. Man occupies a position in time and space, which favors the development of both- inductive and deductive faculties. There is no superior here, both means are necessary for investigation and comprehension.

Quote :
See how you wish to immerse yourself in the general one moment and then cling to the contradiction of your individuality.

Is this not the object of nationalism, all ideologies and creeds, these too are contradictory?

A whole is the sum of its parts in its unity, where there is only a sum there is no whole, aggregates are not wholes absent unity of function. What makes the body a unity, a whole is that its parts without exception are distributed based on interdependency and to this they function as a unity because of their inadequacy in functioning apart.

Quote :
This is why it is funny that females and males wish to escape their sexual roles yet retain their common humanity.

When you say roles you mean responsibilities, but are these primal or instituted roles? Natural to man for the continuation of the race or fabricated by states for the continuation of citizenship?

Quote :
The "higher" up you get in order the less complexity you get.

What constitutes higher? Is a man less complex than a solitary cell? Is decomposition more or less complexity?

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:05 am

Ephemeron wrote:
Satyr wrote:
The "end" is to be able to discriminate as much as possible, because to be aware of nuances, subtlety, patterns of divergence, is to be aware.

Discriminating as much as possible is a means.
Yes, a means of becoming aware.

Ephemeron wrote:
When it becomes an end, is when the discrimination reaches an end as in the generalities of those which discriminate only so far but not far enough.
The "end" is awareness.
You are confused.
Discrimination is the same as awareness.
If you do not wish to make awareness your end then remain as you are.

If I wish to differentiate between two twins I seek the minute differences between them. I discriminate, by finding details of diversity in the seemingly similar.
If you wish to remain blind to these differences and to consider the two twins as one entity, then remain as you are.

I do not.
I know that differences, diversity, is reality...similarity is consciousness trying to order, to find patterns, to find what it knows in the unknown.
Diversity is reality; similarity is the perception of the already known, the familiar.

Ephemeron wrote:
More relevant is the mechanism of mind and the role the mental plays in validating information and directing behavior and how all ideas are partially true but only those which pass through this mental filter influence behavior.
This is learned.
Give a man a fish....and so on.
Now transfer that same method to thinking:
Tell a man what to think....

Your kind wishes to remain on the "being told" that this is all similar, all the same. You condemn yourself to a lifetime of dependence and blindness.
So be it...who cares?
But when you come to a public forum concerned with reality then do not expect to be taken seriously.

Here we discriminate, we seek the differentiating pattern that will make the slightest divergence known.

Ephemeron wrote:
To discriminate is to favor a preference, but no two preferences will be the same, this would tend to uniformity.
No, to discriminate is to perceive difference.
One does not choose to perceive difference.
The perception of divergence is simply the perception of fluidity....of change/movement, (inter)action: Flux.

To choose based on this perception is a totally other thing....it is the next step.
I first perceive divergence....then I choose based no this perception. If I perceive no divergence there is no choice.
Uniformity is the absence of choice.

You are blind and you wish to remain so fearing that you might see something which might stress you.
Change is constant and inevitable, dear.
This means that divergence is the rule.

Ephemeron wrote:
What you mean to say is that you favor a uniformity of taste, which can only arise from a limitation of experience, which is contradictory to becoming.
No, this is the opposite of what I am saying. It is what you are implying.
To discriminate, to perceive divergence, is by definition to not see uniformity, you nincompoop.
If you see differences even between clones, then there is no uniformity.
To see difference is to not see uniformity, you fool.

Ephemeron wrote:
There are boundaries which prohibit all absolute states. Each state flows into the other through gradual change, we do not go from extreme chaos to extreme order without passing through intermediate states and this is the fluidity you are correct to acknowledge.
No, you are describing your fabrications.
There are no absolutes and to assume that there are behind, above, underneath, is a result of your religiousness as it is infected by nihilism and absolutism.

Ephemeron wrote:
The sum of ones past is merely a potential, one may not reach or surpass. Man is unique in his ability to consciously overcome both his genetic lineage and his environment.
The "ability", you describe, is a product of the "will"....and it does not mean that the past is overcome but only that it is slightly diverted.
This is because the Will can focus the organism's aggregate energies and this demands self-consciousness and a level of awareness only certain humans have.
When you deny your past you effectively cancel your ability to diverge from it. You cannot "overcome" what you are ignorant of or what you deny,

This is why to know yourself is the first stage in surpassing yourself, to whatever degree you can do this.
In this case "surpassing" does not mean negating the past, but controlling it.

The past determines potential, to slightly increase this potential, in effect, surpassing one's own limitations as these are inherited, means to willfully choose the path-of-more-resistance, rather than the easier and more natural path-of-least-resistance.
This choice is a result of will-power and focus: Will to Power.
Abandonment to the comforting, the immediately gratifying, the easy is an abandonment to instinct, to the least resistant path.
It does not require much will power to comfort yourself or to bury your head in the sand.
Surpassing your limits, ever so slightly, demands self-control and self-knowledge...not happy delusions and comforting lies.

Ephemeron wrote:
The primary object of order in systems is to affect the greatest degree of inner stability and still retain sufficient outward motion. Therefore, boundaries are the only ordering agents, the female womb is a boundary, anything that contains or traps motion and directs and or increases it. These are conduits, bodies, laws, river beds ect.
Excellent...now consider what this means pragmatically.
Your skin is an incomplete, porous, boundary.
Only by creating stronger more resistant boundaries can order, some degree of it, be attained. Only with boundaries does one have choices. If one is an open sewer he has no choice...everything is allowed in....all must be accepted, tolerated, loved.
It constitutes self-annihilation - nihilism.

Now consider how modernity preaches a breaking down of boundaries, of opening up, of extinguishing discrimination, eliminating ego, embracing the simplistic whole. It calls experiences "baggage" which must be left behind....making every experience a new one - retardation, animal base consciousness.
It calls self-castration, forgetfulness, delusion, a state of "enlightenment". To be a child is sublime; to live in the moment, like an animal, with no past and no future, is a virtue; to surrender to immediate gratification is to be "happy"; to lose yourself in a group, or in the eyes of an other, is to be an "individual".

To discriminate is also to be aware of slight divergences and then based no this awareness to have a choice as to what you allow in and what you choose to leave out.
Walls have windows...and doors.
Those with no boundaries are nothing but open spaces with no substance.

Ephemeron wrote:
Male and female are appropriately positive and negative, one projects outward the other draws inward. All disproportions demand corrections, males which suppress the negative energies of the female are corrected by those which release them. The "feminization of man" is not coherent until it is understood as a counter movement from one extreme state to another.
Feminization is a description of a growing imbalance towards the feminine....the eradication of the masculine spirit in both biological males AND females.

Ephemeron wrote:
Yet you say that man is an ordering agent, if so, how can his nature not favor integration?
Yes...and so each masculine entity seeks to assimilate, to absorb, to integrate the chaos into his, desired Being.
We see here the difference between feminine chaos and masculine ordering.
Both result in the absolute nihilism....each with its own variation.
Absolute chaos and absolute order both constitute a cessation of existence.

Balance, dear....balance means control not denial.
I do not deny my instincts, I control them.
I do not deny the feminine in me, I control it.
Balance means to strive for the middle ground between the two projected absent absolutes, as these are constructed by human binary thinking: between good and evil, between nothing and something, between the one and the zero.

Control means direction. I direct, using my Will....the Will is masculine as only order can produce it.
Since nothing is absolute and perfect and complete, then all is partial and a degree evaluated by comparison.

Ephemeron wrote:
From the union of community, he establishes towns, cities and nations, from the division of nations, ethnicities and races. From these he will establish international unions. So long as his principle nature is objectified towards composition it will be inclusive rather than exclusive and arbitrary rather than natural.
All social cooperative unions demand a submission.
All social cooperative processes are based on a lack. An organism cooperates, submits part of its will, because it cannot survive on its own - it's a compromise.

The larger the unities become all the more submission to the masculine entity, the State, the King, the Institution, is demanded.
The larger a unity becomes all the more a least-common-denominator is required to bond dissimilar entities into a cohesive whole.
This required a feminization...domestication, institutionalization, dumbing-down - a decrease in identity and discrimination and perception.

Every relationship creates a hierarchy....it automatically leads to an interdependence of need.

The truly powerful would be solitary and indifferent....but given that no man is ever without need no such entity (state of Being) has ever come about....for it would be called a god.

Every benefit has a cost, dear.
Your kind is willing to sacrifice mind and perception and identity and self for the sake of comfort, survival, inclusion.
The degree you are willing to do this is what differentiates you...from us.

Awareness is not necessarily beneficial to survival.
Stupidity, in fact, appears to serve survival best within huge herds. The less sense of self the individual organism has, all the easier its integration into the social hierarchies is.
Bees, ants, termites are easily integrated into stable social unities because they are mindless automatons.
Modernity is creating mindless automatons as a way of creating stable internal environments.

Your obsession with the generalization of "humanity" is a form of reducing self-consciousness to its lowest point of utility.

Ephemeron wrote:
General is understood to be less specific. Man occupies a position in time and space, which favors the development of both- inductive and deductive faculties. There is no superior here, both means are necessary for investigation and comprehension.
Therefore, "human" is a far simpler generalization than the category "race" or "sex".
The latter are enhancements, a more precise focus, of the former.
To go further we would have to discriminate, by finding more detailed patterns, even further.
From race, for example, we can distinguish sub-groupings (tribes); from tribes we might then go further and distinguish clans (bloodlines - genetic subgroups) or political groups (memetic subgroups) within the tribe; to go further we would have to then distinguish personalities, within these sub-groups of the sub-groups of the sub-group....which humanity is.
"Human" is simply a subgroup of primate...which is a subgroup of mammal....which is a subgroup of organism and so on...
The more discriminating, aware, conscious, you become the more details you perceive within the categories.

To call a group "human" and be satisfied with this, or to perceive no diversity within this category, is a form of retardation.
It is like perceiving a forest but none of the many types of trees and plants which are a part of it. If you wish to remain retarded because it is less troubling and if you wish to raise your children to be retards or if you wish to congregate with retards like you, because they are also less troubling, then please do so.
Nobody is preventing you from doing so.
But do not expect to sell this retardation as a form of genius to seduce us all into its premises, and do not expect to come to public places dedicated to perception and the enhancement of consciousness, preaching unconsciousness as the new "enlightenment" and stupidity as the new "smarts" and expect to be given a free ride.

If your goal is to see, as much as you can, and as much as you can take, then this is not the same as having a goal of finding nirvana, a place of inner peace and eternal bliss.
There are plenty of opiates out there for you to numb yourself silly, clouding your eyes from seeing anything above a comforting haze of uniformity.
Self-hatred leads to narcissism and self-destruction: solipsism and nihilism.

Ephemeron wrote:
A whole is the sum of its parts in its unity, where there is only a sum there is no whole, aggregates are not wholes absent unity of function. What makes the body a unity, a whole is that its parts without exception are distributed based on interdependency and to this they function as a unity because of their inadequacy in functioning apart.
Consciousness is based no binary methods: dualism.
From this 1/0 system, taken for granted, we get the illusion of absolutes and we construct all our unities. These unities are a process towards order.

So, the absence of an absolute, a complete whole, is what makes the need, the desire, for one a pressing sensation.
Because this absolute is absent it can be imagined, projected, in many ways - each with its own twist or attitude and each with its own level of awareness.

Simpler minds are attracted to and content with grand generalizations like: humanity....or life...or God.
If they become more complex then they are attracted to and are content with: nationalism, religion, idealism etc.
Each form demands a different level of subjugation.

Also, each form of the imagined, projected, order (Ideal), has its own attitude or way of engaging the world: there are the nihilistic ones, the life-hating, self-denouncing, ones, and then there are the life-affirming ones.
Balance is not a surrender to the absolute chaos (0) or the absolute order (1)...it is a rejection of both.
See why the feminine is never rejected by only controlled and directed?
Think of it as libidinal energy which the Will, the mind, takes control of and directs, as much as it can and as much as it acknowledges and accept it.
Libido is the sexual force, the tendency towards chaos (female)...and creation, procreation, in all fields and whatever form it might take (art) is the masculine ordering Will trying to focus it and direct it and to arrest it - it's a counter-movement, a (re)action.

Ephemeron wrote:
When you say roles you mean responsibilities, but are these primal or instituted roles?
A sexual role is a specialization of heterosexual procreative methods.
Each individual has the characteristics and the psychology appropriate for ti carrying out its genetic role. These are evolved, through natural selection.
What mutations come about are a secondary effect.

There is no other purpose for the male/female sub-types to have evolved.

Ephemeron wrote:
Natural to man for the continuation of the race or fabricated by states for the continuation of citizenship?
Nature is the sum of the past; nurture is how this past (inter)acts or applies to the immediate present.
To be more metaphysically precise: the immediate past. Consciousness is always dealing with "has been".
Citizen is an application of this past in accordance to developed ideals: the genes morphing into a meme.

Ephemeron wrote:
What constitutes higher?
Order.
But if you wish to be more precise, since "order" is a term denoting an absent absolute (projected, imagined, Ideal state), then "higher" is a value judgment determined by time.
What does this mean?
What is more resistant to entropy, the chaos, is "higher"...it is long-lived, it is aware of longer breadths of time.
The "lower" is contained within temporal boxes, it totally given into chaos or the surrender to entropy, it is itself a reflection of flux, constant change, with no resistance.

So, in fact, the "true progressive" is the ones we call, in our modern times, "conservative"; the truly conservative, is what we call, in this nihilistic times of inversions, the "progressive".
In a reality of absence of absolutes then the truly revolutionary act is order(ing).
The "liberal" progressive simply wishes to break down all resistance to entropy and surrender to the naturally occurring chaos. The "modern progressive" is the one advocating the status quo of change.
Change happens with no effort...order, on the other hand, whatever form it takes and in whatever way it is projected, demands effort.

But to fully grasp what "higher" means you must first define what you consider "human", or what you most value about the species homo sapient.
What makes man different from other animals?
What defines man as man?

Ephemeron wrote:
Is a man less complex than a solitary cell? Is decomposition more or less complexity?
Only in quantities.
A man is made-up of billions of cells. He is a generalization of their cooperative community.
Notice how cells must be integrated, ordered, and specialized - made totally dependent on the emergent unity and totally void of identity and independence.
This is exactly what modern social systems do to the "individual".

But a "solitary cell" is also complex as it too is made-up of component parts integrated within its emergent unity.

As chaos increases so does the (re)action to it become more severe....but it is always a losing battle.
Entropy always increases whereas all ordering is ephemeral and destined to fail.
This is where the "hero" notion, in regards to masculinity, comes from. A hero, a noble spirit, is the one who fights a losing battle and gains glory in the fight itself.

Increased chaos means increased fragmentation...which results in increased (inter)activity (possibility= space).
Absolute chaos would be infinite possibility, making probability irrelevant, as there would be no pattern to perceive: absolute randomness.
Of course, this is also impossible.

But this last part requires more explanation.

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



PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:01 pm

Wisdom of old

This is the racial theory of a friend of mine. He is an old one-eyed man. Just like our father Odin, so bear with me. It might have some esoteric connotations.

It is inspired, so I heard, by someone named José Argüelles, an interpreter of the Mayan calender.

So there are four colours in the Mayan Calendar and my friend "Theresias", the blind seer, had the following insights to this:

(The four colours are: red, white, blue and yellow)

The colors represent the human RACES. Plural, yes.

Red: being the native american "Indians". And they have a deep connection to the earth, mother nature, which the new age douche bags call "Gaia".

White: these are the Caucasians. They are very good at thinking. Very analytical. But often unhappy and confused.

Blue: these are the Negroes. They are not so good at thinking. But very good at getting things done. Activity.

And last but not least we have the

Yellows: the east asians. They represent the symbiosis.

So that is it. I suggested that the "brownish type" are missing. Arabs, but also Greeks. And that they seem to be heavily invested in values like family and religion or philosophical thoughts. And the wise old one-eyed man looked at me and said in a mystical tone:
"There are even more races than that."
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:20 pm

Race is only supposed to signify an average which points to a potential, a probable.


This means that if I take the average intelligence of a gorilla I can determine the potential, the probability, of this or that attribute being a part of a particular individual gorilla’s essence.
Race is not a method of excluding individuals. It is a genetic designation pointing to a more or a less probable nature, in relation to another genetic designation.

What I am about is memetics, not genetics per se.
Genes, for me, are just a way of streamlining my judgments and my search for those special ones.

I would not seek out a human intellect amongst chimpanzees, although I cannot discount the possibility that one might arise,
amongst that genetic population with an average intellect, that might be superior than the average homo sapient intelligence – highly unlikely but still possible.


How possible, or probable, is up for debate.

What is not up for debate, unless you are some retard liberal, twat, is that genes do determine an upper and lower level in any type of characteristic.

Having said that, memes are what I am all about, as I consider them the outcome of genetics.
I now judge individual humans not merely on them belonging to my gene pool, using current biological, reproductive designations, but on them belonging to my world-view…my priciples….my values…

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



PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:56 am

Quote :

Having said that, memes are what I am all about, as I consider them the outcome of genetics.
I now judge individual humans not merely on them belonging to my gene pool, using current biological, reproductive designations, but on them belonging to my world-view…my priciples….my values…

Thank you for the invitation to post my views, below. Please see for yourself if they belong to your world-view, that I hope is not carved in stone yet, but at least in some parts still up for discussion.

Quote :

[...] genes do determine an upper and lower level in any type of characteristic.

Correct.

What I proposed in the text above your post is, that there actually might be certain roles assigned to the races. That their race designates them for certain activities. Of course this may be regarded as "Arbeitsteilung", which is a marxist concept. So it's a proposal.

The Reds could be gardeners, hunt animals, do rituals and stuff that has to do with nature.

The physical work, that doesn't require much thinking could be done by negroes.

The Caucasians could do the jobs that require thinking.

And the asians could coordinate all of them. Talk to each group, as kind of a bridge builder.

I do get your upper and lower levels in types of characteristics. And I agree. I go a step further and ask: why not apply it to mankind as a whole!?

Why let negroes go to school? And teach them stuff? Even get degrees and all of that!? If they cannot exceed in thinking. Why embarass them? Why torture them? And so on and so forth...

I am thinking very much like brave new world, but without the soma. More like the Indian caste system. Without any bad treatment towards negros or reds or whichever group one might think inferior in the above proposal. It's just a proposal. (Like Niklas Luhmann always said. He would always start his talks with: "I propose ....")

What I am all about is raising racial awareness and the problems that race mixing bring. The human species will or would go extinct. (Muslims don't mix much, so they're a healthy factor in this regard.) Maybe I overestimate Americans in this regard. But here in Germany I always passed as one of the whites. Americans seem very aware of all the nuances. Maybe I am wrong. And the Americans are dumb and the Germans are smart. How does it come then, that I have never heard ANY German talk about the problems of race mixing, but there are tons of english vids on this subject on youtube. There is prejudice here against Americans, that they are stupid, whereas I think we are. The multiethnicity in the US was there for a long time and so people have grown aware of this and now the race mixing is discussed openly. And I think this discourse is needed. Over here we just call it "exotic" and belittle the problems by this approach. Of course there are such that promote this shit in the US. Like there are clubs for proud single moms and shit like that, but what I hope for, just as with the feminazis, that the backlash against those will be so hard, that they will stand embarrassed. Like the US is the death of Judeo-Christianity and the birthplace of secular humanism and the death of Feminism and the birthplace of awareness for the natural differences of the sexes and so on. America is ahead of Europe in many regards. So it could be the end of multiethnic race mixing and the birth for a separation of the races. That's what I would like to see. And it is not going to happen over here first. It's going to have to start in the US. Since those trends started there first. The US has a longer multi-ethnic history than Europe, who has just been invaded for some decades now. Am I wrong?
What I learnt from Hegels dialectic is that there is always a thesis followed by an antithesis and a synthesis. So the US started as a Multi Ethnic Society. That was the thesis. It didn't work so there were these Black Power and KKK race supremacist movements in the 20th Century. That's over with. That was the anti-thesis. Blacks saying: "we hate you pale faces". And whites saying: "those negroes are inferior". The synthesis could be 21st Century awareness for races. Race separation out of the (free) will of everyone. Not by fighting against or putting other races down necessarily, but by focusing on ones own group. White student union and stuff like that. Separation. Places for blacks and places for whites.

I know it is the greatest insult to throw a Greek together with turks and jews. For all these groups it is taken an insult. Like I said: the above is just a proposal. And if you want to open up a category for the middle east, for Greece, for India and for Australian bushmen, certain south american tribes, the east asian tribes... you can do so. It's a work in progress. I am just one man.

In essence I say DROP the question of this thread. And assign the genetic races to certain memetic designations. Let them only breed within their race (caste, group). Let them get together to share ideas like they wish, but make mixing prohibited. And the existing mixed-racials I would not propose to kill off, but let them chose one group. They are outsiders anyway. In racially aware societies they wouldn't even procreate and so their genetic deficiency would soon disappear from earth. Making it a yes: multicultural world in the real sense of the word. A racially aware mankind, with many different cultures. I even think people actually could get along. (In this regard I indeed am a liberal. However my approach is completly reversed from the one-love, we are all the same nonsense, of liberals today.)

Does this make me more liberal than the leftist leftist!? I don't know and I don't care. I say the stars are our next frontier. Space voyages. The advancements of science. Does that make me a nihilist, because it could be regarded as utopia? I don't know. I see it as a direction for mankind. An ambitious goal man could work towards.

What you seem to propose, Satyr, is a "let it happen"-Darwinism. "Let nature (chaos) work out things and we sit back and watch things go down. And not apply memetics (thinking). Projecting idea(s) that are worth striving for..." Some 20th Century white supremacists are still around, who want to return to some hunter-gatherer society. Where physically strong men are valued again. I can relate to the sentiment. Intelligence however has brought us to this point, where machines have taken over most of the physical work of men. So men are obsolete ourdays. My above proposal would give a direction for men, to actually BE men again. A goal were we could work towards, each applying our skills. And it is really the negroe male that is more obsolete in this setting. Since physical work doesn't need real people anymore in our advanced technology.

Is it a political proposal? Yes it is. Is it politics? Yes it is. It is not your "laissez-faire" politics pure market orientation of your libertarians. But to me the above comes natural. It's the logical next step. That considers genes as well as memes. I don't see the need to make it a gene contest like those KKK and black panthers of the 1960s. I think we are one step further within that Hegelian dialectic.
Am I anti nature? Just because I propose "artificial" measures? What is natural and what is artificial? When you introduce memes, that line doesn't hold anymore, because you could declare any meme as artificial and therefor anti-nature. I could label YOU as anti-nature, if you wish to disregard human scientific memetic progress and return to some hunter gatherer society to show that you are tougher than some faggot, who today, in the current setting, earns more money than you. I am not saying today isn't anti-nature. That's why I make this proposal. Because in this proposal differences could be put to use. Does this make me a pacifist? Fuck. I think our war is a war against decadence. It is not a war that is faught along the lines of borders anymore. Or races. Or religions. Our war is a war against decay. Against nihilism. I would like to propose an alternative to Nietzsches Übermensch. Apply Nietzsche, but not put him on a pedestal. He had some great impulses, but his view was (like Spengler critizised) restricted to his geographical sourrounding to his little community. He didn't see the big picture. Neither did Goethes or anybody until Spengler. Like later Hitler did, but applied the wrong measures. Every race at this point could be put in their niche. Where they can become "overmen". Where they can reach greatness. Take a physically challanging job for example. A white man would always feel undervalued doing it. And at the end of the day. He'd feel like misplaced and hate society or THE state for not giving him the opportunity to apply his real talents that are his ideas and thinking abilities. Take on the other hand a negro, who can work in a physically challanging job all day. He will be happy in the evening. And think of himself like an "overman".

Where does family fit into all of this? Look at Sparta or ancient Greece in general. Once the boy came home from his initiation ritual he was considered a man and belonged to the tribe. And not just to his natural parents anymore.

Quote :

"A war like no other."-Satyr


Last edited by Laconian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:12 am

No, what I propose is a shift in perspective where humanity becomes a mere element, an environmental condition, where each memetic group represents another “species.”

I propose a tribe within a tribe….or a discriminating taste, if you will, where one defines one’s own kind not merely genetically (Negro, Jew, German, Greek, Asian) but mimetically.
Obviously certain gene pools will be less likely to produce the particular type of man or woman, but they should not be excluded on racial grounds.

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



PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:24 am

I agree with you completely. I am working on a little text to summarize Luhmanns Systems Theory. I think you would like it. You are already working on mimetics (or memetics? memes anyway), whereas most people here, I assume, are still very much caught within the frame of appearances (genes) and are not yet in the position to state their own memes, other than placing race at the top of their otherwise void memetic hierarchy. Luhmann is an antidot, like Kafka and like Nietzsche.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:32 am

You yourself probably have experienced being a foreign outsider, in a way a bit like me, when you moved from Greece to Canada. I suspect that is what has opened your mind to look further than just race. Most people don't get to make an experience as such. That's why they need extra literature to wake up to things, that others are experiencing by their fate or what you might like to call it.

Leftists talk too much.

Right wingers talk too little.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:42 am

I’ve always been about ideals.

My spirit, my essence, is the sum of my past, and my genes are but one part of this. Certain
genes do produce certain memes, but they are also infectious.
Genes fertilize, merge,and spread, and so do memes.

Like one can only fertilize one of one’s own kind, genetically, so too one must find someone of their own meme to fertilize with ideals, or to expand and make ideals understood.

A human cannot reproduce with a chimp, and neither can he share and combine ideas with a primitive mind. What we are dealing with here is a sophistication of a kind, a genetic kind morphing into a mimetic kind.
What we
have with memes is a higher form of discrimination.

Actually I first moved from Greece to Canada when I was nine-months old…then back to Greece when I was eight….then back when I was fourteen.
I’ve been living on both sides all my life.
Now I’ve settled here, where the climate and lifestyle agrees with me.
I’m not much for heat and sun…and I like rain, and chilly weather.
I’ve always been an outsider. It’s what gave me a unique perspective on human nature and on culture.

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



PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:33 pm

What other subjects besides race are you interested in to discuss?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:15 pm

The more
relevant question being what do YOU want to discuss…and why are you not
starting a new thread on it?
Maybe you are inexperienced with forums but here, using this format, you can start a new thread, on any topic that interests you.

_________________
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: is there a superior race? Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:55 pm

Ephemeron wrote:


Merit and talent are the only true aristocratic values and I fail to see how these are acknowledged less today than in the past. This is not to imply that they are more frequent today only that where they exist by their very nature they can not be ignored.

Its a question of the proper order of a Hierarchy. What kind of value(s) and merit(s) in which field, etc.

Quote :
I am also unsure the prevailing attitude today is a denial of nature, in fact I find ample proof of the contrary as a great deal of emphasis is placed on the responsibilities we have to the natural world and its future generations. I also am of the sort that believe that there is a measure of truth to all ideologies and I am not interested in disproving one system or the other on the other hand, what is of worth should be separated from what is not.

No. As Heidegger pointed out, nature is perceived like another commodity, "enframed" as a raw material to a man-centred humanistic ecology; Human-sustainability than an overall ecological balance. This Man-centric perspective is another facet of the same sec. humanism.

Quote :
This 'unlimited activity' differs qualitatively from culture to culture.

Quote :
Money is certainly part of it but you must realize that all money is, is a means. A current if you will that can take us either here or there and to be in the current is activity. Those outside of it are always going to despise it, but will be the first to utilize it as a means to achieve their end.

David Graeber distinguished between Value [economic markets] and Values [socio-cultural affirmations]. Globalization is a transgression and un-ranking of Values to Value. It is the making of a Market out of home, religion, art and such valueS.

_________________
[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
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:11 pm

Satyr wrote:Discrimination is the same as awareness.

Only to the indiscriminate.

A difference is, awareness describes the object in its passive state, discrimination, in its active state.

To discern is to move, this activity is the minds means to designate incoherent data into greater coherency. Correlation, segregation, dissection, these are the way we categorize the world and distinguish things from other things.

Bigotry, stupidity, superstition, these counter activity. They are the sedatives which pacify and paralyze the mind into inactivity and contentment.
To perceive as much as one can and to experience as much as one can handle is to discriminate as much as one can, to go beyond the surface, to penetrate further into the meat of things. Every new investigation exposes new questions and doubts. Because every experience is unique and singular, judgments qualify only where they are specific to what is relevant.

Going back to Fénelon: To think as this is the most hated way one can think.
Certainly, no one can think as this if they were to perceive no diversity anymore than one can imagine the conceptual without acknowledging the concrete.

Humanity in this regard is a qualitative concept so far as it is the concept from which the concrete emerges and takes a definitive form.
Therefore the basis of Fenelon’s love: “to love humanity, more than the fatherland” is to acknowledge the fatherland as the emergent flower from a greater generating principle of humanity. Likewise, the family is the fruition of the fatherland of which the man is the seed which carries the potential of the entirety within. There could be no plant without the seed and neither can there be the seed without the plant.

Mankind, is a concept of order as the highest idea. More precisely it is the essence which manifests itself through the ever expanding variety. Goethe considered this “typus” to be the unitary form that has no being in itself except what is always coming to be.

Therefore the word mankind refers to a concept which does not exist, has no being or form on its own and is indeed an abstraction. But it has concreteness in the varieties which have developed in accordance with the conditions of the world.

In man we find a combination of two essences, that of the animal nature and that of the mind. Man is a product of these two to the degree they are either pushed or push. To be a superior man is to harmonize that nature with mind to the external world. Or, to control and direct appetites rather than be controlled and directed by them, to move rather than be moved.
Back to the quote by Fenelon. As I said, those which think like this are to be vilified by almost everyone. This majority being defined by those which think broadly, (the many exploit the few) and those which think narrowly (the few exploit the many).

Where one is cynical the other is optimistic, one imagines that man is not capable of being more and the other that he is incapable of being less. Yet, time and time again both views, are proven wrong. Even though these two views are contradictory, when taken together they exhibit the unified view, (everyone exploits everyone). And this is the condition of the world that has dominated all ideals and societies. The hatred for man in all or some of its parts is the most common way a man can think and so constitutes the HERD mentality.

Though it is no doubt true that very few think correctly (nobody exploits anybody). And this is because the very conditions of the world tend to perpetuate and favor what is common and base. Since, society exists because of an exploitation of needs into that of wants, everything is pushing us toward dissolution and misanthropy. Every instance and occurrence, every observation and discovery brings us to a hatred for mankind in either its entirety or in part because the love of self is the principle object by which we secure our happiness.
Even those which do think correctly can not escape this so long as they see only through their own moderate view point.

And so the great object of the philosopher has been to correct those points of view, which have been too broad and too narrow and those that are moderate, by teaching men how to look through eyes other than their own.


Goethe held the view that man could never know himself through self contemplation or introspection. According to him the inner knowledge of man was revealed in outer experience: He said,
“If I know my relationship to myself and to the outer world, then I call it truth. And in this way each person can have his own truth and it is always the same one.”

The oneness of humanity is not to mold all view points to one specific view point but to provide the glass that allows one to see from their conflicting view points, then no matter where they peer down or up from, no matter where they contradict, the view is always the same.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:44 pm

Ephemeron wrote:
Satyr wrote:Discrimination is the same as awareness.

Only to the indiscriminate.
Ah, another one.

To discriminate:
From an on-line Dictionary
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dictionary.com wrote:

dis·crim·i·nate

[dih-skrim-uh-neyt; dih-skrim-uh-nit] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] verb, dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, adjective.

verb (used without object)
1.
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2.
to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
verb (used with object)
3.
to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4.
to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.
adjective
5.
marked by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.
Notice that apart from #1, the rest describe a perception of difference.
The first describes a reaction to this perception of difference.

To discriminate is to perceive, to be aware of a divergence. It is a higher level of consciousnesses.
To perceive uniformity, in a colored wall, let us say, is to perceive no divergence across its surface. The wall appears the same across its expanse.
To see patches of diverging shades in the wall is to distinguish a divergence, no matter how subtle, which makes the wall more intricate and less uniform.

I can, if I like, step back away from the wall losing details due to my weak senses, in this way comforting myself that all is the same on a wall which is uniform and one.
When I move closer or if my eyesight, my sensual acuity, is more powerful, I perceive divergence where the other only sees uniformity.
The other is therefore less aware of what the wall is, in relation to the one who can find subtle details of divergence.

Ephemeron wrote:
A difference is, awareness describes the object in its passive state, discrimination, in its active state.
There is no passive state as all is active and (inter)acting.
Discrimination is to find a pattern of divergence in the dynamic world.
To be non-active is to be non-existent.

But if by "passive" what is meant is submissive, then passivity is a sign of weakness.

Ephemeron wrote:
They are the sedatives which pacify and paralyze the mind into inactivity and contentment.
To perceive as much as one can and to experience as much as one can handle is to discriminate as much as one can, to go beyond the surface, to penetrate further into the meat of things. Every new investigation exposes new questions and doubts. Because every experience is unique and singular, judgments qualify only where they are specific to what is relevant.
To perceive is to perceive as much of what is apparent.
What is apparent never hides...unless it willfully tries to mask its appearance.
To perceive is not only to see...it is to smell, to touch, to hear.
The heart is apparent, but inaccessible to light and so not visually perceived.

There is no hidden reality.
All that exists is active...all that is active can be perceived.
The apeparance of another, of an otherness, is not accidental nor is it superficial.
What appears is the manifestation of its entire past.

The perceiving mind interprets this past in color, form, texture, smell, sound, tone etc.
Each divergence, each fluctuation, each reverberation, is translated, by the mind, in a form it can process.
Black, white, red, are not superficial, nor are they singular. They are an important aspect of an otherness, as this participates along with form, texture, size, smell, sound, in a an (inter)action with mediums (light, air, electromagnetism) which then stimulates the sense organ and is translated accordingly.

The color of a banana is no less significant than its odor, its form, its smell.
It total appearance is a product of its past. It is its essence interpreted by the human mind.
Each and every blemish, shade, detail, exhibits its past.

Ephemeron wrote:
Going back to Fénelon: To think as this is the most hated way one can think.
Certainly, no one can think as this if they were to perceive no diversity anymore than one can imagine the conceptual without acknowledging the concrete.
Um...yeah..."concrete" sounds like an attempt to introduce the "spirit" by using a different word.

Of course, the automatic association of discrimination, or of perception, with hatred, is like this automatic association of emptahy with compassion. A trained response by a culture trying to establish internal stability by creating the illusion of uniformity, or homogeneity.
To perceive and acknowledge diversion, does not entail any automatic response to it.
If I can discern a dog from a cat, this does not mean that I will beat the cat and pat the dog.

The discernment is separate from the response.

Ephemeron wrote:
Humanity in this regard is a qualitative concept so far as it is the concept from which the concrete emerges and takes a definitive form.
A gross generalization slandering any attmepts to refine percpetion and to dinstiguish shades within its theoretical uniformity.
Humanity: a species designation, based on discriminating between apes, for one...and founded on sexuality...which it then, hypocritically, denies as a valid category.

The uniformity in behavior is reinforced by institutionalization and brainwashing, from birth, creating this mimicry that supports the notion of equality in potentials.
Without divergence evolution does not work...and empiricism becomes a joke.
No matter how minute the difference each divergence signifies something, and builds over time, due to the Butterfly Effect.

Ephemeron wrote:
Therefore the basis of Fenelon’s love: “to love humanity, more than the fatherland” is to acknowledge the fatherland as the emergent flower from a greater generating principle of humanity. Likewise, the family is the fruition of the fatherland of which the man is the seed which carries the potential of the entirety within. There could be no plant without the seed and neither can there be the seed without the plant.
And based on this self-negating "logic" one must then love the ape more than humanity...and life more than apes...and God more than the world.
It turns man into a molecule with no significance, buried in a vast expanse of uniformity, tricking us with its multiplicities.

To love something you must define it.
To define something you must distinguish it.

I define humanity as that which possesses one trait that separates it from all other animals...but which is not uniformly distributed across all populations.
I will not mention this one trait which distinguishes humanity but yet is not something all humans are equally endowed with.
But, if I am correct, then some are more human than others.
You define humanity as that which can fuck and produce children.
Your definition is base, though you profess to be enlightened.

To be human is not to be forced to behave in a particular manner...nor trained to imitate behavior.
A chimp can do as much.

Ephemeron wrote:
Mankind, is a concept of order as the highest idea.
Idea indeed.
A concept of leveling.

Ephemeron wrote:
More precisely it is the essence which manifests itself through the ever expanding variety. Goethe considered this “typus” to be the unitary form that has no being in itself except what is always coming to be.
cyclops

Goethe wrote:
Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and
always be, men and only men.



Ephemeron wrote:
Therefore the word mankind refers to a concept which does not exist, has no being or form on its own and is indeed an abstraction. But it has concreteness in the varieties which have developed in accordance with the conditions of the world.
As does ape...and mammal...and plant.

Ephemeron wrote:
In man we find a combination of two essences, that of the animal nature and that of the mind.
We find the same in all organisms, to greater or lesser degrees.

Ephemeron wrote:
Man is a product of these two to the degree they are either pushed or push. To be a superior man is to harmonize that nature with mind to the external world. Or, to control and direct appetites rather than be controlled and directed by them, to move rather than be moved.
The Will is the focus of all aggregate energies at the disposal of an organism
This requires consciousness; self-consciousness is the next stage.
To efficiently and effectively direct these energies one must discern, discriminate...be conscious of a divergence, no matter how small.

Ephemeron wrote:
Back to the quote by Fenelon. As I said, those which think like this are to be vilified by almost everyone. This majority being defined by those which think broadly, (the many exploit the few) and those which think narrowly (the few exploit the many).
Ha!!
And yet history is about the latter.
The reversal or the illusion of it, occurred with the infection of Judeo-Christian nihilism.
Hierarchies were overturned...definitions reversed...the world turned upside down...the meek shall inherit the earth.
A spiritual disease, manipulating the masses who depend on these leis to feel safe and sound...and wanted and valuable, and appreciated.
Like telling them that beauty is skin deep and something "inside", rather than an apparent manifestation of inherited genetic health.

Ephemeron wrote:
Where one is cynical the other is optimistic, one imagines that man is not capable of being more and the other that he is incapable of being less. Yet, time and time again both views, are proven wrong. Even though these two views are contradictory, when taken together they exhibit the unified view, (everyone exploits everyone). And this is the condition of the world that has dominated all ideals and societies. The hatred for man in all or some of its parts is the most common way a man can think and so constitutes the HERD mentality.
And yet, emotional projections aside, one must be disatisfied to act.
One must know he is a slave to hope to be free.
One must reject to overcome.

To "hate" feces is to not ingest it and get ill on its decay.
What one rejects is what defines him.

Life is a continuous rejection of death.
I reject ignorance and so I act in a way that promotes knowledge.
I am dissatisfied with my weight so I act to lower it.
I think I am valuable and that my loyalty means something, so I reject attempts to turn me into a whore, giving herself to every man with the right amount.

Ephemeron wrote:
Though it is no doubt true that very few think correctly (nobody exploits anybody). And this is because the very conditions of the world tend to perpetuate and favor what is common and base. Since, society exists because of an exploitation of needs into that of wants, everything is pushing us toward dissolution and misanthropy. Every instance and occurrence, every observation and discovery brings us to a hatred for mankind in either its entirety or in part because the love of self is the principle object by which we secure our happiness.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Human domination has made life boring...comfortable, predictable...it achieves this by uniforming, training preferred behaviors, limiting awareness etc.

To this leveling some few rebel...they reject.
Now man is both predator and prey, where once he huddled amongst his won to protect himself from predators and enemies.
Now his own kind is both.
Fragmentation ensues as uniformity is pushed.
More refined definitions emerge to describe what is human, or what is "my kind."

Ephemeron wrote:
And so the great object of the philosopher has been to correct those points of view, which have been too broad and too narrow and those that are moderate, by teaching men how to look through eyes other than their own.
Empathy does not turn a chimp into a human.
Being magnanimous in times of comfort is easy. One feels pity towards a pet.
But when hard times come, when nature breaks through the facade of civilized behavior, the old ways return.
you see them every time there is a war or a riot...those manimals emerging, wearing stylish hats and artistic symbols.

Training an animal not to shit in the house does not make it aware.

Ephemeron wrote:
Goethe held the view that man could never know himself through self contemplation or introspection. According to him the inner knowledge of man was revealed in outer experience: He said,
“If I know my relationship to myself and to the outer world, then I call it truth. And in this way each person can have his own truth and it is always the same one.”
Indeed, and so (inter)activity exposes divergence and essence.
Light interacts with a wall, which then takes on a vibration that interacts with my ocular nerve.
The information is transferred, via a nervous system, to a processing hub (my brain) where it is interpreted using evolved methods which take this interactivity and interpret it in form, color, and so on.
The method is simple, but not superficial...as it is successful.

Ephemeron wrote:
The oneness of humanity is not to mold all view points to one specific view point but to provide the glass that allows one to see from their conflicting view points, then no matter where they peer down or up from, no matter where they contradict, the view is always the same.
In short: it is a form of social blindness.
A communal blind-spot, for the sake of comfort.
Let's pretend this sensual data means nothing here, but everything there; let us pretend that here, slight differences matter, whereas there they are too small to matter; let us pretend that this sensual data is relevant, whereas that one is not; let us pretend that although we are empiricists, our senses really do not matter when it comes to humans.

The view being always the same, makes it a stunted view, turning vision into a farce.
Why look?
Ask your neighbor to look for ya.
Let him be your eyes.


Thanks for playing.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:43 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Its a question of the proper order of a Hierarchy. What kind of value(s) and merit(s) in which field, etc.

What kind of values are proper and what constitutes as merit and what determines the proper order of Hierarchy?


Quote :
As Heidegger pointed out, nature is perceived like another commodity, "enframed" as a raw material to a man-centred humanistic ecology;


Man centric (humanism) is a view seen from man eyes, not the eyes of the honey bee or the cow. Nor should we suppose that a bee or a cow would see the world through anything but their own eyes. The man centric view is the correct way to view the world for men and a bee centric view is correct for bees.
Nothing then has any value other than the value that the thing perceiving it (in this case man) gives to it.

To see anymore than what we perceive with the senses is to rely on an intuitive sight, for we may only see as bees or cows or apes if we think that each living thing ought to be free to live a life of its own and that everything that strives for existence ought to be free to do so by its nature alone. Yet this is entirely the reasoning powers so influenced by the heart and feelings, and it may very well be an incorrect view, since everything is striving to live and since for anything to live means some other thing must perish. Or it may simply be true that bees and cows do not perceive any other purpose in their existence than to provide food and milk for organisms higher than themselves and anything that interferes with this purpose contributes to making their lives pointless.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:56 am

Ephemeron wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
Its a question of the proper order of a Hierarchy. What kind of value(s) and merit(s) in which field, etc.

What kind of values are proper and what constitutes as merit and what determines the proper order of Hierarchy?

I tend to rank Culture above Economics. Values above Value. I'm influenced by Ezra Pound on these things.
For me, Merit lies in an organic harmony; in a fitness, where everything is allowed to develop in a proper proportion to a larger whole. Humanity is not the goal, but the evolution and production of Higher Individuals [not the liberal kind of individualists].
The proper order is determined by the Health of a society, and Health is constituted by a balance of its natural drives.

Quote :

Quote :
As Heidegger pointed out, nature is perceived like another commodity, "enframed" as a raw material to a man-centred humanistic ecology;


Man centric (humanism) is a view seen from man eyes, not the eyes of the honey bee or the cow.

See John Gray: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[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
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race? Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:28 pm


_________________
[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: is there a superior race? Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:38 am

I wrote a response to the list from the above link, but it may have diverged too far from the topic of this thread.

Ill-conceived goals among some racially biased websites.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: is there a superior race?

Back to top Go down
 
is there a superior race?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» is there a superior race?
» Anybody into Rupaul Drag Race?
» Boat Race 2012
» The Great Tea Race of 1866
» Men Are Mentally Superior To Women

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