A War Like No Other

The "common" usage of words is bland, inartistic, dull...literal.
The average man has very little talent for language.
He uses words in broad strokes or by a painting by the numbers method, where the dictionary definitions become scripture, and though many different definitions might be given to the word, the underlying nuances escape popular appreciation.

This only exacerbates the limitations of language, restricting its utility by complaining the word within its lowest common denominator, the common usage.
Common usage is affected by fashion, trendiness, popular applications.
The word can act as a metal bar incarcerating the human psyche within its stringency, its literalistic absolutism, and its its socioeconomic and cultural usefulness.

Some languages are more impoverished than others, adding to the problem.

Take the word Need.
It is perfect because it refers to the consciousness of an absence.
I feel need because I am an organism, a self-organizing, emergent unity, in a reality tending towards chaos, randomness.
This temporal attrition produces in me, as organism, a need.
If the mind cannot satiate it, decreasing its call, then it increases in discomfort, to a level we call suffering, or pain.
Time, as a measurement of change, does not stop, and so if I do nothing, I begin to experience this change, this entropic attrition upon my ordering,m as an uncomfortable need.
No pleasure is possible, because the word is decreasing in order, and pleasure is the sensation of momentary, sometimes explosive, sudden, gratification of a pressing need. the more uncomfortable the need has become, the more pleasure in its gratification I experience.

Pleasure is not the elimination of the need, it is the temporary reduction of it, (the sensation of existence), to a level where the mind need not concern itself with it.
It is the reduction of care, concern, attentiveness.
pleasure in all other cases is a disruption of focus upon need. A distraction caused by a projection of possibilities or an conscious immersion in an externally perceived, aesthetically engaged, order/symmetry.
The brain being a tool for ordering is, naturally, drawn to all manifestations of order...patterns, sonar and physical symmetry, or brain symmetry experienced as creativity (humor, imagination etc.), intelligence, demeanor/character/personality.
The order offers the mind inspiration, an example of a probability, that soothes the mind with its presence, and pulls it closer with its superior power, the gravity/mass of its order.

Wants/Desire

The word desire was sexual undertones, and is best used to define a refinement of the term want.
A want is also a nuanced reference to need/suffering.

Want is best applied in reference to memetic contexts, just as need/suffering is best applies to genetic contexts.
The application is not arbitrary and not superfluous.
It is used as a tool to differentiate the different manifestations of need/suffering, within different contexts.
It is a tool for understanding, by categorizing.
The usage of a different word, symbol, code, is meant to give the nuanced modification of the original word "need" a greater precision, so that language does not result in confusion, but leads to clarity.
in common parlance these words are used interchangeably, carelessly, but if we care, we are concerned, we are motivated by the need to satisfy our curiosity or to comprehend ourselves within existence, then the words become hues on a painter's palette...cords on a musicians violin.
More care than the common usage is required...just as an sculptor takes greater care, than a laymen, to chisel a stone.

The term "want," can now be used as a modification of the term 'desire' which slightly eliminates, reduces, the erotic connotations, making it useful ni describing organic behavior outside of mammalian, heterosexuality.
Wants, being memetically defined, can be manufactured, as man is the creator, constructor, of memes. Man is the organism that intervenes upon nature, and genetic processes, so as to manufacture man-made environments, sometimes in antithesis to the processes he intervened upon - Nihilistic.

Wants are the manufacturing of an object/objective which satisfies multiple needs.
Needs underlay wants, making them conspicuous foundations of the object/objective...increasing he effectiveness of manufacturing them.
This is particularly useful in human political and marketing contexts, where the masses can be manipulated by selling an idea, or an object/objective, by subtly connecting it with human needs...and desires.
Man is made to want things (consumerism) which he may not need, by symbolically suggestion a connection to a need which is part of his essence.
This subtlety is what we call seduction.
To say something, indirectly, to suggest it without actually saying it.
The other begins to want/desire, without knowing what it is that made him/her want/desire.
The individual is unconscious of the connection, because nothing has been clarified, but only suggested, symbolized, insinuated...yet (s)he feels an urge towards the object/objective.
Once the connection has been suggested, the subconscious takes over, attracted by the promise of a satiated need.

Ah words....word, so many pretty, pretty words.

So many of them, each with its own slight variation to the theme.
How many words for snow do the Inuit have?
Same phenomenon, but each one a tiny bit different in its reference.

Words to help distinguish the minutia, but, in the wrong hands, word to to cast uniformity over it all.

Take the word "want".
It can be used in many ways...sometimes it can be sued to contradict need.
Not to offer a variant of need, but to pretend an opposition to it.

I want...I desire...I need.
Each slightly different, and yet not so different.

Words to be used sometimes literally, sometimes as symbols, figuratively, sometimes to mean the opposite of what they mean.

Words that an help an honest motive, or discourage prying eyes from seeing the motive, the intent.


Modernity is the age of words.
The Holy Book, is our centerpiece.
The Jews learned much from the Greeks....from the Oracles.

We are the people of the Book, by the Book, for the Book....Encompassed by the codes of linguistics, trying to cover up the world itself.

Motive....intent.
It's the first thing you must discover about the user of words.

Is he trying to find clarity, or to hide from reality?
The first hint is a reluctance to define words....more than by referring to scripture, to a dictionary, but by connecting the words they use to something experienced, sensed.

The second hint is a reluctance to explain one's own positions...to allude to them but not to actually display them honestly, clearly, directly.
A feminine coyness - a playfulness with words.
A need to preserve self, ego, by keeping an escape route open....by never concerning yourself in with a clear position.

The third is this need to have the other explore you...to want them to seek you out, so as to then flee mocking them: "You can't catch me! You can't see me!".

Words used to pretend that something is being said, when nothing is being said; words used to pretend one knows when he is clueless.
Words have rhythms, and silences...tones.
Each letter a note, a sound separated by silence.

Words are musical.

I've said this before but the manimals populating our small alcove suffer from Modernism.
ADD....and social autism - the idiot savant syndrome.

Perspectivism only works when words are disconnected from experience, form phenomena, from sensuality, from reality.
Then binary concepts like beauty/ugly....superior/inferior....smart/stupid....negative/positive....become interchangeable, arbitrary....subjective.

The malleability of words, referring to mental abstractions unconcerned about sensual data is what makes cultural relativism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti judgment possible.
When the words, referring to the mental model are detached from reality, they can refer to anything...because they refer to personal taste that faces no culling. It only works in sheltering environments, because nature, reality, the world, does not give a shit about human hopes, ideals, expectations, or preferences.

Once the word is attached to reality, is defined not by referring it to a dictionary, to text, or back human abstractions, purified concepts, then the perspetivism ploy is castrated.
When the standard is placed outside human ideals, it ceases to be subjective.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, no matter how desperately the modern idealists want it to be so.
It is the eye that evolves to perceive the beautiful, because the eye is an organ serving the interests of an organism...an organization.
The individual may pretend that it is not seeing ugliness, a lower grade of symmetry, but its duplicity will eventually expose itself.
Even an ugly, fat, female, dreams of banging the tall, dark, fit, and handsome male.
She may settle, but she does so by repressing, hiding, fooling herself.

Does a dung beetle love dung?
Yes.
It's need for dung characterizes its nature.

Is c-RAP music equal to other forms in lyricism, melody, complexity?
No.
Do some people,m the majority, even, like c-RAP music?
Definitely
This like defines their essence.

Is c-RAP music "bad", or "good"?
It depends on what your goal is, what your ideals are.

Values judgments:
Juxtapositions.

Of what?
Of one to an other.
OR
Of one to an average.
Or
Of one or an average to a goal, an idea(l), a projected object/objective.

Is intelligence good?
Is it bad?
Is stupidity, simplicity, good or bad?
Neither.
Intelligence is good or bad in reference to a goal, an ideal.

In some cases being stupid/simpleminded is advantageous...such as within sheltering environments.
In natural environments being stupid is never good...because the outcome is never intervened upon.
In sheltering environments it is a benefit because it produces internal harmony, complacency, discipline....harmony.
Like with ant colonies and bee hives.

An emergence of self-consciousness, a sense of identity, of intelligence, in the tiny brain of a bee would make its incorporation into the hive, as a blind automaton, problematic.

You write a lot of words to justify your prejudice against a person.
It's a very elaborate ad hominem [/i ].
Speaking of that...
Do you know your latin, dear?

want: quaero: I seek
desire: de sidere: (from the stars) I wait for what the stars will bring
need: egeo: I am without

Please go on, tell me that they are words all meaning the same. Tell me that asking you to use words to mean what they mean is restricting to your ability to [i]philisophize .
Darling, I don't care for what goes on the inside of your mind, I can't go there... god knows, I'd need a haz suit.
If you do bring your mind out here, though, do try and use the language of your choosing with the finesse that is owed to your thoughts.

Then there is the pattern with Words where one is triggered by the Words of someone else, and a restatement of one's position is presented as if it is a response.  Instead of directly interacting with the Words of the one one disagrees with, the person, not simply preserving ego, but utterly cocooned in it, uses any situation as an opportunity to hear himself say what he knew was true long Before this particular discussion takes Place.   Purity is maintained by not integrating the position he is supposedly responding to into the response, and not showing in this way the hypothetical errors or weaknesses.  No, the regurged essay, likely found in other threads - truly this must be exhausting while also facile -stands on its own, not quite responding, Calling out implicitly its victory over the position it did not really understand enough to respond to in specific.  Often this pattern is accompanied by implicit ad homs, Little dominance tics.  A recent example is some other thread somewhere, a humble exclamation of not being able to help.   This metacomment masks the insult by responding to a hallucinated desire on the part of the other.   The burden of the wise when their to some degree response-ish essays are not enough.

>Is this pattern feminine? hmmm. There is a bit of the not longer experiencing bitch about it. Is it masculine? Sure, sadly it is a minority pattern.

Bit of a myth the Inuit having more Words for snow.  

Dung Beetle in its overapplication a bit of a misnomer.  A good number of dung beetles are not.

But who cares, why quibble over Words.

The slings and Arrows of outrageous abstraction.  

Stay focused on the mass when focused on the lower other and stay focused on the specific exceptions when focused on one's own.

Naive realism, the conduit metaphor for language and Words as mirror fragments. Everything has been cleared up.

fifi wrote:

You write a lot of words to justify your prejudice against a person.

Typically female to take everything so personally, so emotionally.

Why do creatures like these incapable of objective detachment pose to do philosophy?

Because philosophy has become cheap literature.
No longer an initiatory discipline.

Intellectual criticism becomes emotional ad hominem.

Quote :

It's a very elaborate ad hominem [/i ].
Speaking of that...
Do you know your latin, dear?

want: quaero: I seek
desire: de sidere: (from the stars) I wait for what the stars will bring
need: egeo: I am without

Please go on, tell me that they are words all meaning the same. Tell me that asking you to use words to mean what they mean is restricting to your ability to philisophize .

[i]




want -

c.1200, "to be lacking," from Old Norse vanta "to lack, want," earlier *wanaton, from Proto-Germanic *wanen, from PIE *we-no-, from root *eue- "to leave, abandon, give out" (see vain). The meaning "desire, wish for, feel the need of" is recorded by 1706.


need -

Old English nied (West Saxon), ned (Mercian) "necessity, compulsion, duty; hardship, distress; errand, business," originally "violence, force," from Proto-Germanic *nauthis (cf. Old Saxon nod, Old Norse nauðr, Old Frisian ned, Middle Dutch, Dutch nood, Old High German not, German Not, Gothic nauþs "need"), probably cognate with Old Prussian nautin "need," and perhaps with Old Church Slavonic nazda, Russian nuzda, Polish nędza "misery, distress," from PIE *nau- "death, to be exhausted" (see narwhal).

The more common Old English word for "need, necessity, want" was ðearf, but they were connected via a notion of "trouble, pain," and the two formed a compound, niedðearf "need, necessity, compulsion, thing needed." Nied also might have been influenced by Old English neod "desire, longing," which often was spelled the same. Common in Old English compounds, e.g. niedfaru "compulsory journey," a euphemism for "death;" niedhæmed "rape," the second element being an Old English word meaning "sexual intercourse;" niedling "slave." Meaning "extreme poverty, destitution" is from c.1200.


desire -

early 13c., from Old French desirrer (12c.) "wish, desire, long for," from Latin desiderare "long for, wish for; demand, expect," original sense perhaps "await what the stars will bring," from the phrase de sidere "from the stars," from sidus (genitive sideris) "heavenly body, star, constellation" (but see consider). Related: Desired; desiring.


Philosophy in the grand sense is about positing values that Rule.

And what's a value?

Quote :

"Values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination-and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things."

Words are TOOLS HINGED to GOALS/IDEALS.

To use words in a design that increase self-mastery is what "Philosophy" is about.
The Philosopher is a Ruler.

The eagle's vantage is for the broadest over-view and deploying words that cover it.

Its not the realm of philosophy, but philology to study the geneaology of words that SERVE  the best deployment and usage to Ruling which Philosophy is.

Quote :

Darling, I don't care for what goes on the inside of your mind, I can't go there... god knows, I'd need a haz suit.
If you do bring your mind out here, though, do try and use the language of your choosing with the finesse that is owed to your thoughts.

Stupidity talks. Its funny.

When idiots cannot see Philosophy from literature.

History, and the history of language only Serve the Philsoopher,,, the Philosopher is not here to serve the language. Only retards jabber that way.

So many words...no response.

I am forced to either repeat, or to ignore.

To use words to mask, to bury, to conceal, is what the children of the Book, the holy text, do when they refuse to connect the noumennon to the phenomenon, preferring to let the mind free itself from the burden of reality, and fly off into the fantastic heavens where nothing limits it, confronts it, challenges its "ideals".

The practice of burying yourself up your own anus rests on two necessities: either one is protected from his own detachment, his own naive, infantile stunted development, or one is a hypocrite, saying one thing and then acting in contradiction to the words one uses.

Want = a focus of need upon an object/objective
Desire = a libidinal connotation of the previous.

Need = a more organic word, encompassing both want and desire, as all these words are about a lack.
One can apply it in reference to mammals and to plants.

Whether one seeks, or waits, does not alter the lack.
One does not seek unless he is missing something.
One does not wait unless he feels like something is absent.

Cultural perspectivism: all cultures, all art, are equal in quality.
Only a sheltered mind would utter such absurdities when nature is all about selecting the superior.

The uniformity of thinking of creativity....accomplished only when sheltering does not impose a cost upon stupidity, upon inferiority.
The simple admission that all humans are forced to live by the products of their own subjectivity, is turned into the illusion that all minds produce a more accurate description, understanding of the world, reality.

Reality, the world, cares not for human ideals, and hopes, and ideas.
It fluctuates rendering them obsolete, but not before the superior ones ascend in clarity.

From now on....I will use less words.
More ambiguity.

How long can an old-fart, a "primitive"  man, deal with an infant?

Kovacs wrote:

Then there is the pattern with Words where one is triggered by the Words of someone else, and a restatement of one's position is presented as if it is a response.

But is the other doing any different?

Have positions really changed just because words have? Just because they are presented with different examples?

Repetition indicates no counter-change.

Quote :

 Instead of directly interacting with the Words of the one one disagrees with, the person, not simply preserving ego, but utterly cocooned in it, uses any situation as an opportunity to hear himself say what he knew was true long Before this particular discussion takes Place.

I don't see anything dishonest in presenting a general position that 'takes care' of individual claims.

Quote :

Purity is maintained by not integrating the position he is supposedly responding to into the response,

I disagree with that charge; perhaps if you care to point out which claim went un-attended?

Quote :

Dung Beetle in its overapplication a bit of a misnomer.  A good number of dung beetles are not.

For every x, there is going to be subconditional clauses,,, do we throw out x?
The sky is blue, but on stormy days, it turns black. Do I not make the statement the sky is blue for fear of stormy days and take it out? And even if I did take it out, even if I didn't make that statement, will it change reality as it is, that the sky Is blue?

Quote :

But who cares, why quibble over Words.

The slings and Arrows of outrageous abstraction.  

But that's the point he's making. They are not.
Words Are actions, exposing one's physiological values.

Lyssa wrote:

But is the other doing any different?

Have positions really changed just because words have? Just because they are presented with different examples?

Repetition indicates no counter-change.

The demand to change one's mind, as an indication of open-mindedness, resting on the assumption that all must change just because....and for no reason.
It's the Modernistic reflection of chaos....constant flux.
Though environment changes at a slower rate than a human lifetime, or a generation or ten, the, so called, "progressive" must enact change...meaning it must bring about a human alteration to an environment that has not altered fast enough for its tastes.
The "progressive" as the one who conserves, is conservative to the unavoidable 'towards chaos'.
It's why anarchism is a product of the "left" side of the political spectrum, not the "right".
A dissatisfaction with "what is", grasping on change as an immanent coming, a blind hope (faith).

It offers nothing different to defend its delusional positions, it says nothing, really....and yet it expects the other to change....just because.

Look-up the specimen's positions on art.
All is a matter of taste.
Cultural perspectivism.
No superior art produced within a superior culture emerging in population with superior creativity.

No ascent, no growth...all is uniform.
All is different, yet the same.
Sameness is the hidden presupposed ideal.
Difference is superficial.

Beauty, accidental.
The eye evolves to create beauty, not to discover it.
The brain evolves to construct order, not to discover it, uncover it...and then to imitate it, symbolize it, understand it, reconstruct it, appreciate it.

Man...Ape....the same.

Satyr wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

But is the other doing any different?

Have positions really changed just because words have? Just because they are presented with different examples?

Repetition indicates no counter-change.

The demand to change one's mind, as an indication of open-mindedness, resting on the assumption that all must change just because....and for no reason.

Kovacs says, "uses any situation as an opportunity to hear himself say what he knew was true long Before this particular discussion takes Place.",, and fifi says, "You write a lot of words to justify your prejudice against a person.
It's a very elaborate ad hominem";

As the history of the threads in the forum show, it is Fifi who first began the prejudicial condescending calling you an "old man" and juxtaposing her "spontaneity" and "coquettishness" to imply her grasp on aesthetics was better because she was such.

Now that's a very blatant ad hominem.

Kovacs says individual posts were ignored and truth was already made up in your mind before discussion, but the one who began with the first bias, the first prejudice "old man" is fifi and her own rigidity of that bias before she even listened.

But where's any intellectual honesty here to accept that?

Before that kind of pre-judicial thinking, why SHOULD anyone respond to them individually when they come with such fixed bias?


In my opinion, you've been far too considerate Satyr.

Lyssa wrote:

Kovacs says, "uses any situation as an opportunity to hear himself say what he knew was true long Before this particular discussion takes Place.",, and fifi says, "You write a lot of words to justify your prejudice against a person.
It's a very elaborate ad hominem";

As the history of the threads in the forum show, it is Fifi who first began the prejudicial condescending calling you an "old man" and juxtaposing her "spontaneity" and "coquettishness" to imply her grasp on aesthetics was better because she was such.

Now that's a very blatant ad hominem.

Yeah...but that's part of the game.
To listen to the words that contradict the actor's acting.

Like "All deserved love".
Same principle.
The act conflicting with the words.
It's why specimens are so useful.

Take their opposition to my positions of need/suffering.
They enter with no understanding...then they declare with no arguments.
They expect me to come up with new material when they haven't understood nor contradicted my positions.
They say nothing, and then fall back on "that's not what I meant".

They say shit like "life is not JUST about suffering."
The argument being?
Where did I say pleasure was not also part of life?
Did I not define it as the negation of need/suffering?

Then they go into the usual:
"You can change words and the reasoning applies"
Nope...'cause I've anchored my words on perceptible phenomenon, and not pulled it out of thin air.

When I say "need" I connect it to time, change, entropy...metaphysics, physics, psychology...
I don't say "Just because"...or "Need emerges spontaneously".
 

Lyssa wrote:

Kovacs says individual posts were ignored and truth was already made up in your mind before discussion, but the one who began with the first bias, the first prejudice "old man" is fifi and her own rigidity of that bias before she even listened.

But where's any intellectual honesty here to accept that?

Supposedly, one must enter a conversation with a blank mind...and then accept any opinion, just because....or for the sake of argument.

Humility must be offered, for the exchange to occur.
No matter how stupid, weak, the other is, the benefit of the doubt, to let him participate, as if, he were a contender.  

Lyssa wrote:

Before that kind of pre-judicial thinking, why SHOULD anyone respond to them individually when they come with such fixed bias?

Usually I respond to them as a group.
They come from different directions but their presupposed premises is shared.  

Lyssa wrote:

In my opinion, you've been far too considerate Satyr.

Ah shucks, Lyssa, you're only saying that 'cause you like me.

What is feminine is to continue a relation with a narcissist/solipsist AS IF the dynamic is or even more commonly WILL SOME DAY transform into an actual dynamic relation. So the narcissist/solipsist first only becomes aware of the other when they refuse to play the role of (only) audience/appreciator. Often he will accuse the other person, who refuses the demanded role of long suffering wife, of running away, when in fact all that is happening is that the other is behaving, now, just like the narcissist. The narcissist never having to run away since he is not present for a dynamic relation in the first place. His running away is habitual. So the dynamic may become, for example, a short essay meets the short essay of the narcissist. To go on as if an actual interaction was going to take place would be feminine. The giving of a spotlight. The wistful role of the bhakti sunyasin. Because some who come to ignore the narcissist are not so bright or honest, this becomes a handy mental reference for the narcissist who extends this to cover all who ignore him, making a nice blanky.

None of the above is an argument on anything.

An ad hominem attack, trying to discredit the source, and ignore the topic.

Here's a real narcissist:
Someone who believes he deserves immortality and that the world was created for his pleasure.
Someone who is engulfed in his own self-referential verbiage, where none of his words refer to anything outside his skull.
He says little because he does not have to justify his feelings to anyone.

And because I've encountered this angle about a hundred times before....here's what I wrote about it way back when I gave a shit:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"The man had a smooth voice, like velvet. “I’m Detective Inspector Me. Unusual name, I know. My family were incredibly
narcissistic. I’m lucky I escaped with any degree of humility at all, to be honest, but then I’ve always managed to exceed expectations. You are Kenny Dunne, are you not?”
“I am.”
“Just a few questions for you, Mr Dunne. Or Kenny. Can I call you Kenny? I feel we’ve become friends these past few seconds. Can I call you Kenny?”
“Sure,” Kenny said, slightly baffled.
“Thank you. Thank you very much. It’s important you feel comfortable around me, Kenny. It’s important we build up a level of trust. That way I’ll catch you completely unprepared when I
suddenly accuse you of murder." [Derek Landy (Death Bringer)]


And then there's the kind of narcissist who is exactly like that who insists others feel comfortable around them, and pay lip service to politeness and go through the "ordeal of civility"... and that way, when they call the other "old man", it doesn't register as an ad hominem at all... one laughs coquettishly... like it were harmless....

It helps them cope with the ideas without having to deal with them.

So be it.

It's the idea that if you do not pay them attention then you pay nobody attention.
Your behavior towards them, though they do not warrant it, is indicative of your behavior towards everybody.  

Be impolite to a true Modern narcissist....see how he imagines you being impolite in general.
He deserves, because it is universal.

If you do not love him, you lack the ability to love.
You are loveless, in a universal sense.
He is the universal, which demands love, respect...attention, to be taken seriously.
Your attitude towards him is your attitude towards life, towards the universe, towards ALL.

Have you seen an envious ugly chick when a beautiful woman receives the male attentions she covets?

She accuses the woman of soliciting attention, when it is she who wants to draw some of it away and focus it upon herself, and if she is ignored she calls her a "stuck-up whore".
Whether the beautiful woman is actually seeking attention, or if she's receiving it simply for being what she is, is besides the point,. What matters to the needy, ugly, woman, is that the attention she desires is being absorbed by an other.

Same shit.

Isn't it interesting that philosophy, for the Kovacs of the world, is about a relationship; a persona to persona interaction where the topic, reality, the world, is of a secondary matter?

The topic of the world, as that which is being explored, takes a secondary place. First place is preserved for the human dynamic, the relationship.
The speakers must become intimate, as people....not as minds exchanging opinions about something, where the personal is excluded.
Both sides must be gratified...otherwise why bother exploring reality?
Whatever is discussed, for the Modern schizophrenic/narcissist, must be mutually beneficial.
The relating is not between I and the world but I and myself or I and the other, who is a reflection of my self.

His narcissism is now an openness to other.
He wants to focus on other, so as to receive from the other attention.
The topic of reality, as what is other than both participants, is excluded...a medium to engage in a relating: civility, love, politeness, care.....
 
The real must be engaged through this dynamic. The other's feelings must be taken into consideration, so as to ensure that one's own are also given the same care.

He deserves to be listened to, though he says nothing of relevance.
He deserves simply for participating, for existing, for having something to say.  
If you do not pay him the heed he needs, expects, demands (narcissism right there) then it's you who is self-absorbed.

Deny a needy person love and see how fast he accuses you of being narcissistic.
Self-love begins, for the modern in the other's love.

Lyssa wrote:

fifi wrote:

You write a lot of words to justify your prejudice against a person.

Typically female to take everything so personally, so emotionally.

Did that sound personal to you? Did it sound emotional? It sounds to me like you are reading more than is there.

No matter, I'll take it as a compliment.

Quote :

Why do creatures like these incapable of objective detachment pose to do philosophy

Simple, what I am not involved with, I don't care about.

Quote :

Because philosophy has become cheap literature.
No longer an initiatory discipline.

as evidenced by the content of this website

Quote :

Intellectual criticism becomes emotional ad hominem.

The criticism is great. Make more.

Quote :

Quote :

It's a very elaborate ad hominem [/i ].
Speaking of that...
Do you know your latin, dear?

want: quaero: I seek
desire: de sidere: (from the stars) I wait for what the stars will bring
need: egeo: I am without

Please go on, tell me that they are words all meaning the same. Tell me that asking you to use words to mean what they mean is restricting to your ability to philisophize .

[i]




want -

c.1200, "to be lacking," from Old Norse vanta "to lack, want," earlier *wanaton, from Proto-Germanic *wanen, from PIE *we-no-, from root *eue- "to leave, abandon, give out" (see vain). The meaning "desire, wish for, feel the need of" is recorded by 1706.


need -

Old English nied (West Saxon), ned (Mercian) "necessity, compulsion, duty; hardship, distress; errand, business," originally "violence, force," from Proto-Germanic *nauthis (cf. Old Saxon nod, Old Norse nauðr, Old Frisian ned, Middle Dutch, Dutch nood, Old High German not, German Not, Gothic nauþs "need"), probably cognate with Old Prussian nautin "need," and perhaps with Old Church Slavonic nazda, Russian nuzda, Polish nędza "misery, distress," from PIE *nau- "death, to be exhausted" (see narwhal).

The more common Old English word for "need, necessity, want" was ðearf, but they were connected via a notion of "trouble, pain," and the two formed a compound, niedðearf "need, necessity, compulsion, thing needed." Nied also might have been influenced by Old English neod "desire, longing," which often was spelled the same. Common in Old English compounds, e.g. niedfaru "compulsory journey," a euphemism for "death;" niedhæmed "rape," the second element being an Old English word meaning "sexual intercourse;" niedling "slave." Meaning "extreme poverty, destitution" is from c.1200.


desire -

early 13c., from Old French desirrer (12c.) "wish, desire, long for," from Latin desiderare "long for, wish for; demand, expect," original sense perhaps "await what the stars will bring," from the phrase de sidere "from the stars," from sidus (genitive sideris) "heavenly body, star, constellation" (but see consider). Related: Desired; desiring.


Philosophy in the grand sense is about positing values that Rule.

And what's a value?

Quote :

"Values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination-and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things."

Words are TOOLS HINGED to GOALS/IDEALS.

To use words in a design that increase self-mastery is what "Philosophy" is about.
The Philosopher is a Ruler.

The eagle's vantage is for the broadest over-view and deploying words that cover it.

Its not the realm of philosophy, but philology to study the geneaology of words that SERVE  the best deployment and usage to Ruling which Philosophy is.

Dear I agree whole-heartedly.
There can be no philosophy without philology, just as there can be no table without an axe/saw.
The most brilliant philosopher, when throwing words around like an ass, sounds like an ass, surprisingly.

Quote :

Quote :

Darling, I don't care for what goes on the inside of your mind, I can't go there... god knows, I'd need a haz suit.
If you do bring your mind out here, though, do try and use the language of your choosing with the finesse that is owed to your thoughts.

Stupidity talks. Its funny.

When idiots cannot see Philosophy from literature.

History, and the history of language only Serve the Philsoopher,,, the Philosopher is not here to serve the language. Only retards jabber that way.

Do notice that what I wrote was that his thoughts deserve a fine use of words.
It was a compliment.

Stupidity can't read. It's funny.

Philosophy = It's spontaneous....just because.

I feel like lettuce, and my mystical experiences are the end itself.

Let us pray, brothers and sisters.

Dost thou not suspect my place? Dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! but, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow; and, which is more, an officer; and, which is more, a householder; and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any in Messina; and one that knows the law, go to; and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses; and one that hath two gowns, and everything handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass!

Lyssa wrote:

As the history of the threads in the forum show, it is Fifi who first began the prejudicial condescending calling you an "old man" and juxtaposing her "spontaneity" and "coquettishness" to imply her grasp on aesthetics was better because she was such.

Now that's a very blatant ad hominem.

Dear you have it all wrong.
None of my play is aimed at personal discredit. You do notice that it has no such effect, no?

You would think of one person here who might enjoy a little... satire...
'Tis no generosity. It is the sheer pleasure of the give here and the take there.

Old fart says....
Boooya!!!!

When wenches begin to imitate corpses, of old dead men, they fall prey to their own desires. 

One rushes for cover in the shadows of a large man, heart pounding, palms sweating...panting in a bitche's heat.
She would bend over and have him ride her, like a mule - the stiff that is - if she would only find relief from her moisture.

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

As the history of the threads in the forum show, it is Fifi who first began the prejudicial condescending calling you an "old man" and juxtaposing her "spontaneity" and "coquettishness" to imply her grasp on aesthetics was better because she was such.

Now that's a very blatant ad hominem.

Dear you have it all wrong.
None of my play is aimed at personal discredit. You do notice that it has no such effect, no?

My precious, using old age to imply one's grasp of things is not firm enough, unlike your good spontaneous self, Is a personal discredit, no?

Quote :

You would think of one person here who might enjoy a little... satire...
'Tis no generosity. It is the sheer pleasure of the give here and the take there.

Indeed; a star once given, cannot be taken back...

phoneutria wrote:

Dost thou not suspect my place? Dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! but, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow; and, which is more, an officer; and, which is more, a householder; and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any in Messina; and one that knows the law, go to; and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses; and one that hath two gowns, and everything handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass!

My Precious,

In deepest humility I pirate herewith to Your Royal Buggery a lyrical offering. With awesome pleasure I still remember the very special Royal grace when, some time ago, during my visit in the divine chatbox, Your Royal Buggery deigned to play to us all a theme for a fugue, it was called "I enjoy coming here to simply elicit reactions"... the tune was played out most graciously.

Your Royal Buggery's most august presence made me notice very soon, however, that, for lack of necessary preparation, the execution of the task did not fare as well as such an excellent theme demanded. It got foiled and soiled... and I promptly pledged myself it is no small point to let one such as Your August Buggery get away just called an ass. I make bold to add this most humble request: may Your Royalty deign to dignify the present modest labour with a gracious acceptance...

Herewith:

Arachne's Song

I might be strong but I am all threads
And I hold myself together with a web
And you pick the strands apart
Everyone unravels just a bit in the dark

A gossamer ruse...

Recoil from the colours you unmask
Fool to meddle with the scaffold of the heart
I play dead when I feel under threat
When awake, I'm my own marionette

I may be fragile, fighting through
But they say silk is bulletproof
I may be frightened facing you
Still I spin out sideways from the truth

A gossamer ruse...

I swing between the flower and the thorn
Hang resplendent with the diamonds of the morn
Then I wait to trap you in delight
Sudden does dawn's wander sicken down into night

A gossamer ruse...

And sudden do my colours re-appear
And you cry out as I'm crawling ever near
Time's too late to allow old regrets
I devoured those that I loved the best

I may be fragile, fighting through
But they say silk is bulletproof
I may be frightened facing you
Still I spin out sideways from the truth

A gossamer ruse...

Is there not a sense of embarrassment at one's own nature, which makes a woman deny her nature, while playing it so perfectly?
A woman, of a certain quality of mind, feels a bit ashamed at what she cannot resit being.

This is why feminism is so seductive, as well.

To want to surrender, to give yourself, to give-in, to enjoy, without knowing the reasons, spontaneously, as it were.

The schism of modernity - its gene/meme schizophrenia.
It turns men and women against themselves.

Misogyny and misandry are forms of self-hatred turned outwards.

Satyr wrote:

Is there not a sense of embarrassment at one's own nature, which makes a woman deny her nature, while playing it so perfectly?
A woman, of a certain quality of mind, feels a bit ashamed at what she cannot resit being.

Its false pride having false humility for its basis.

"Everyone is unique" is hyperinflated to the point, it becomes the Indifference "I am unique, I don't care about this or that" - - - this Indifference has been taught  as the meaning of Independence... and one thinks one is being really Cool, and Attractive, and Seductive when one resists giving into one's own nature.

Its supposed to be cool to not Need.

To need is shameful.

Exactly.

A shame concerning one's own nature, one's own past.

They think they are above it, that they no longer care about all this "primitive" thinking....and this is what makes them easy.

Why change them?
I like them to remain as they are.

They...
those whippersnappers!

phoneutria wrote:

They...
those whippersnappers!

They....
Those pretty, careless, carefree, blissful ones.

I want you to give yourself to an ugly, old, ancient, creature, such as I.
Prove yourself.