The meta-physics of weight lifting.

Joe Schmoe wrote:

I keep this moniker so people from ILP will recognize me. When I joined ILP, I was suicidal and didn't have a high opinion of myself, so I was very honest with what I thought of myself.

It is not surprising to me that you were suicidal, as you are one who is given over entireley to emotions, one who is controlled and dominated by them. Emotions are not the bedrock of the universe, but only an evolutionary development of biological organisms. They serve a purpose that the rational mind can unlock, much the same way it has discovered certain physical laws using mathematics and the scientific method.

You will continue to live in nihilistic misery and despair until you can overcome these feelings that dominate your life, just like a heroin junkie cannot give up his next fix, is dependent upon the fake euphoria the high gives him because drug free reality (himself) is so unbearable.

But also many live at the bottom of the sea, in darkness, without eyes, without knowledge. There are no guarantees that one should expect anything else.

There will be blood wrote:

Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think. The world plenty interesting, but once you equate any sort of value onto things the game gets quite bland. Love and fear are just over attachments. The trick, Mr. Potter, is not minding it hurts. Ya dig?

I'd have switched the word tragedy for drama and placed tragedy somewhere between drama and comedy. Mr. Potter had his mind blown.

S wrote:

Read my positions before you make such self-flattering declarative statements.

I came into this thread to tell Primal of my experiences, and the lessons that I've taken from them.

You replied to the content of my post, saying that I was indirectly/directly promoting nihilism, self-denial and disillusionment.

Then you have the nerve to accuse me of trying to start a war, of desiring to win. In my initial post, I am offering a perspective, that is all.

I insulted no one. I showed respect to all. Therefore, it is not I who has displayed a will to win, to shoot down, to attack, but rather YOU, who has displayed these signs.

PrimalRage ought have the opportunity to decide for himself the integrity of my position, without you needlessly running in waving your sword.

Since you're the one addressing the content I posted, I am not obligated to know all you've said in the past. All I reasonably ought be aware of, is your responses directly to me.

S wrote:

You've not read a thing I've written ...or you've not understood a thing.

I do not simply state, I have a reason why I place fear before love.
So far nothing on that.

I was tired, so I was skimming what you wrote and assumed you were actually trying to talk about people, instead of referencing unconscious organisms as a guide to how a human being operates and ought operate.

But I digress.

The organisms didn't actively seek to create protection. They evolved protection because those with protection weren't eaten. It was the luck of the draw who was protected and who wasn't.  They had no intent, and were on autopilot.

Now, back to human beings, which you were abstractly trying to justify the actions of.

We are the apex predator. We aren't threatened by other animals. We are only threatened by ourselves. Since we can communicate with each other, and can find common ground, we can RATIONALLY and LOGICALLY devise strategies as to how to most effectively interact with each other.

As Bill Hicks said in his speech, our governments devote huge amount of energy and resources into their armies / defense forces. This is also a very common practice for individual people, to devote large amounts of their energy into defense.

When one is in defense, every other aspect of their lives, is affected by the individual's will to be alert of danger so one can employ their defense strategies when deemed necessary.

Ideally, this isn't how we want to focus our energy. If we didn't have to defend ourselves, our energy and time would be freed up to do things we value intrinsically. Therefore, to seek compromise and co-operation with those around you, is designed to maximize returns, not sell one's self short for safety.

However, as long as there's still people at war, no one can let their guard down without letting in the chance of being set upon by those still in the war mentality.

This is why the first step in going towards an environment where war is not necessary, is to overcome the source inspiration for heading to war - Fear.

S wrote:

I place love where it belongs.
I also explain how lust, based on the evolution of feeding, then results in love and its two forms (Eros, Agape) ...and I explain why love evolved and how it evolved into the parental and then the social binding emotion.  

Where did you do this?

You said love is an antidote to fear.

Since we both agree that love leads to having children, your argument is that fear would hinder this process, therefore, love arose to counteract fear, so we would have children.

Hypothetically, if I have no fear, and no love, would I be motivated to have children? Your argument appears to say yes. That love doesn't produce anything independant from countering fear. What I don't see, is how lack of fear leads to having children.

The same goes for creativity and invention. The greatest inventors were inspired by their own love for invention. Yet your argument would say, as long as a man isn't afraid, he will invent. Which is to say, love has no function beyond it's relation to fear. That is hasn't it's own independent functions that would still be required had fear not existed.

I'm not afraid of eating grass, I also don't have a motive to eat grass, but I'll do it because I'm not afraid. - ???

How is love a reaction of fear? I'd like you to explain, without referencing organisms that don't feel emotions.

S wrote:

Circular reasoning. bravo!!!
Love is because of love.

Love preserves love. That's it's nature.

Is not your argument that fear preserves fear?

Live with fear in your heart so you wont get raped by your environment, so you can live another day in fear.

S wrote:

To have a choice, you must first exclude.
If you are an open sewer there is no choice.

There is no choice. All one does is react.

Quote :

You enclose space-time for there to be a will towards anything.
This enclosing is a reaction to entropy. Ordering as a rejection of disordering.

This enclasing is a reaction to the past, and the past was neutral.

Ordering is an embrace of order. For the sake of one's intrinsic value in order.

S wrote:

I care not what you desire, what you want, nor do I explore reality with my own preferences in mind as a necessary element of what is.

You're describing your own perception of reality, that does not mean it's accurate. Your emotions affect your vision. You describe in terms of rejection of entropy. Reality doesn't reject. Reality is neutral. You aren't neutral, that's why you reject and percieve rejection.

S wrote:

Whatever.
You win, I concede.
I am wrong.
Move on.

I reference the beginning of this post.

S wrote:

I'm sure.

You're defensive.

Recidivist wrote:

It is not surprising to me that you were suicidal, as you are one who is given over entireley to emotions, one who is controlled and dominated by them. Emotions are not the bedrock of the universe, but only an evolutionary development of biological organisms. They serve a purpose that the rational mind can unlock, much the same way it has discovered certain physical laws using mathematics and the scientific method.

You will continue to live in nihilistic misery and despair until you can overcome these feelings that dominate your life, just like a heroin junkie cannot give up his next fix, is dependent upon the fake euphoria the high gives him because drug free reality (himself) is so unbearable.

But also many live at the bottom of the sea, in darkness, without eyes, without knowledge. There are no guarantees that one should expect anything else.

A post from ILP:

JS wrote:

My interpretation of the heart/mind concepts is that the heart is the driving force behind all acts, and the mind is a tool that is used to filter, prioritize and organize the drives, then to devise strategies to adequately satisfy those drives.

To reject the heart, is to render the mind completely redundant. For to lose motivation, leaves the brain with nothing to process.

To reject the mind, is to leave the heart desiring and hungering for things, which can hardly be attained without the mind. The only satisfaction of hungers will be a product of sheer luck.

I say both ought be embraced, but if one's got priority, definitely the heart in my book. At least you can fluke satisfaction and warmth with the heart, as opposed to the empty unheated home of the mind.

I was suicidal because I rejected emotions. I viewed life as constant struggle and an addiction and had no reason to subject myself to pain.

Had I not had a found something of value in life, I intended to kill myself. This is far more honest than living a half life which I perceive those who live in fear are doing, just as I did.

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


-----------------------

Stress as a method of increasing strength:

Habituation with stress either kills you or forces you to adapt, to grow stronger.
Weightlifting is an artificially induced stress level placing the body in a state of stress.
Repeating the practice forces the muscle to break and then to heal, increasing in mass in the process.

The opposite would result in atrophy.
The standard being gravity on this planet, which maintains an average for the species.
Less stress reduces the strength of the muscle.
For instance consecutive bed-rest or going into a zero gravity environment for a prolonged period of time.
This comfortable less stressful situation atrophies the muscles.

Same goes for the brain.
'You don't use it you lose it' applies.
More sheltering environments less challenging ones atrophy the brain.  
Reduction in habituation also makes it more difficult to deal with what was more easily dealt with.

----------------------------

In the previous we find the reason why the nihilistic perspective that all is a matter of perspective fails - the idea that it's all a matter of taste, of words, of angle.

The division between POSITIVE and NEGATIVE is quire simple, yet profound:
That which requires no effort to come about is negative; that which requires constant effort to come about and then to preserve itself is considered positive.

Light, Heat, Life, Order, Consciousness all require energy, something to be consumed.
Dark, Cold, Lifeless, Change, Unconsciousness, Chaos all require no effort. They come about without intervention and without any effort being required.

Consider this in relation to the thread's topic:
Atrophy requires nothing more than inertia, not doing anything, an absence of stress.
Lie down, if you can, for months and see yourself deteriorate without you doing a thing.

Why?
Because change, the towards entropy, towards increasing randomness, chaos, is the status quo.
The resistance to change, which is what life is, this self-organizing - ordering - requires constant energy, effort, and this requires the assimilation, of energies, so as to nourish or increase the energies necessary to resist, to order.

As I've said before, we may assume that the condition of increasing entropy is regional, or what we are aware of, but this still does not explain how life would be possible, in a towards decreasing entropy, for then ordering would be superfluous.
Life is only possible as a resistance to chaos, to entropy, because it is a "positive", energy consuming, ordering within the disordering.

So called progressives are really metaphysical conservatives as they seek to preserve what occurs normally: change.
This is accompanied by a secret hope that change will alter the circumstances and so result in a Utopia, an existence they can tolerate.

In fact strength, power, is not only ephemeral and incomplete - ending itself to Jewish cynicism and comedy - but it is a measure of weakness.
Strength measures the organisms tolerance of reality, of temporarily, of change - it's ability to resist.

An actual genuine christian. Wow.

There's a spectrum being drawn here between love and fear, both passive, reactive emotions, as they represent a response to the other, an imposition on the self from the other rather than an imposition of the self upon the other, which would be an active, aggressive gesture/movement, a seizing, dominating, possessing of the other.

Is the Will to impose order fear? It stems from weakness or a lack in that it is presupposed there is by default an absence of order, a natural tendency for a system to degenerate into decay and dissolution.

The premise is that conflict arrives from a fear of conflict and so without fear we consequently have no conflict and then only love. This is rather trite and does not even reference why conflict occurs in the first place, nor how to resolve it.
Aggression can then be characterized as a fear of the other, a reactionary, defensive, passive act of being dominated by another's active, imposing Will.
Here is the first contradiction; the Other is always the active, imposing agent. The Self must be reactive, passive and fearing. Who the originator of conflict is, as an active imposing Will, is left undefined.
It doesn't seem to be the case that the "loving" one is the active approach either, as it is based upon compromise and co-operation and atrophies it's potential by avoiding stressful conflict at every opportunity. The "loving" one seems to be characterized by submission to the other in order to be incorporated into his ordering Will, rather than risk injury by resistance.
It would seem to me that this "loving" approach is as fearful as the apparent alternative offered here. It goes without saying that it is extremely effeminate.

Secular Humanism is Christianity minus God.

I agree with your post.
Also, the issue is a chicken and egg one.

Which emotion had to evolve first, and as a reaction to what?
Emotion does not precede sensation.
Social survival strategies do not precede singular life forms.

Sameness does not preceded divergence.
In fact to perceive sameness requires divergence to have already been in place.
And the perception of sameness requires a higher level of simplification and generalization.
I see something as being alike only because I cannot see detail where the divergence, the difference, would identity one as other than.

Satyr,

I agree with your position of stress to promote strength, I've written something similar myself. I can accept your definition of positive and negative, in regards to order. Although I would argue in the past, organisms didn't have the intent to preserve order, it was circumstance, natural selection that promoted order. Those with particular orders, were well suited to their environment.

I would say to you love promotes order. Love can inspire one to assert one's will against that which poses a threat to the continuation of the loved. It needn't be a product of submission, just as fear needn't be, but can be.

To shed light on the similarities among people needn't be an act of ignorance in regards to the distinctions, but rather be an act of illustration of the mutual goals we all share, and if circumstances permitted, we could co operate in achieving these goals together, rather than independently at odds with one another. If there's a circumstance where we needn't fight each other because there's enough of the desired to satisfy all who seek it, then it's rational to find this balance so all can preserve their limited energy so they can in turn devote it to other goals.

I don't intrinsically value sharpening my tools, but it's a means to an end. If I can remove the necessity for the tools, then i'll seek that so I have more time to focus on what I do value.

Also, I love life. If life didn't change from the way it was today, if my will to reflect my inner ideals on the outside reality that we all share resulted in nothing, I'd still have wanted to live this life. I'd still have wanted to be here.

I'm denying the present for hopes of a certain future, I'm in the present growing continually and enjoying that process.

I think I've said all I want to say, and I don't expect for your perception to change, I can't force that, just influence it. Just as you can't force mine to change.

I'll leave it at that.

Consider the difference between eros and agape.
I've explored the difference in many places, but some simpletons fail to read, or to understand what is written.

In the above post we see an example of a capitulation after the passion has been exposed to reason.
This specimen now repeats back to me exactly what I've been saying all along: that love is not selfless, but selfish, and that like all emotions it serves a survival purpose, and it is not magical, mystical or some transcendental force.

What this specimen cannot accept is that is follows fear, in evolutionary time, for utilitarian pragmatic reasons which I've gone through in other threads.

Notice, also, how he detaches from this exposure: the "let's agree to disagree" where the perspectives are equated by a uniforming ignorance.
He doesn't address the issue, he skirts by it, using personal angles to imply that all perspectives are equally valid, without having to deal with my reasoning.
How sensation evolved into emotion, and why fear had to come first, because of the sensual factors and how and why senses evolved, he does not want to deal with, All he wants to speak about is the present, the usefulness of love, how gratifying it is to him in the present.
Classic modern mind.

His love underlies all, and is equal to fear, cannot justify itself when one goes back in time.
One wonders how awareness of sameness is possible when divergence is not already in effect.
How does one love what one is not aware of?
How does self-consciousness precede consciousness, and how does consciousness precede life, or a certain level of organization?

Fear, on the other hand, is a reaction to the absence of awareness.
Love required habituation, knowledge of otherness. Fear does not.
 
So, where no certainty is absolute, he can depart, feeling secure that his position is just as possible as any other.
 


Agape is a rational form of attachment. It is based on lucid awareness of the shared goals.
Eros relies on blindness, on a madness, where the love is purified by making it divine, by absolving it of all motives except unification with the sublime absolute oneness.

Agape know why it loves, and sees in the other every blemish.
Eros must cleanse the other, the loved one, of all blemishes.

Agape is aware of the divergence, the past, and accepts it for the sake of a selfish, interest.
Eros must purify its own selfishness behind ignorance. It must clean the self away, and deify the emotion.

Agape is forced into this position by divergence. The cooperation is strengthened by the recognition of divergence and the awareness of the temporal shared goal.
Eros denies this necessity, so as to make of itself an unmotivated purity.
For the unity to function in the feminine mind it must be irrational, unconscious, instinctive.
To see, to shed light would break the spell.

Nevertheless, with eros the spell is always broken because the ideal can never match, for a long time, the real, in presence.

Primal Rage wrote:

Weight lifting is one of the most masculine activities there is. The masculine, as many of us already know, is characterized by domination and overcoming.

Or rather it is one of the last permitted activities, insofar that it acts as a valve.  Really though it is what our friend, Ted calls a "surrogate activity". It allows you to pursue something that you can have as much control over as possible and this gives you the feeling of some "will to power"

Quote :

Why do I weight lift? You ask.

"I do it because I am seeking to become the strongest version of myself. I love the feeling of power."

Perhaps but it is more likely you are not being truthful, not just with those you are sharing this with but yourself as well.
You do it because you are aware of a lack, a need which you can only answer in what really is an artificial manner.  This need and the subsequent infatuation with filling it, is likely born from the unsatisfactory view we have for ourselves. We find ourselves born weak and so try to give strength to our muscles by repetitive lifting.  This though, does not develop symmetry, and often we compensate one aspect of our lives to correct a deficiency in another.  Weight lifting is incredibly useless and it is a poor substitute to compensate where strength is not naturally developed from real physical labor or activity.

Quote :

What motivates me?

The need to be more than you are which arises when one strives for an ideal.  Here, this ideal you create for yourself is one of immense strength, size perhaps and endurance.  The weightlifter and the hamster in a cage are the same though both striving for activity but not truly living.  

You tell yourself:

"Deep seated, unconscious rage. Before I perform a set of heavy singles on the deadlift, squat, and overhead press, I perform a ritual. I begin by pacing back and forth like a lion in a cage. "

But look there, you see it.  You are in a cage, whether you are a lion or a hamster is inconsequential, you are in a cage.  Were you out of that cage, a petty thing like lifting weight up and putting it down would seem to you so much a waste of time and energy that you would never think of doing such a thing.  But in a cage, all you have is time, time becomes meaningless when there is no real end to pursue.  To make due for inactivity we invent activities which showcase how active we are.  

Look here, at Satyr, he boasts of his intelligence and consciousness but yet has chained himself to a mouse, how many "posts", how many videos?  What is a post but evidence of a life unspent, does it not represent to the man, a sunset that was missed or a moment lost?  Who can say they have lived, when they have spent so much time on a medium which by its very nature separates man from nature?  Here, everyone can be what they want, I could tell you I lift more than you, I am this or that, and how would you know otherwise?  Here everyone is what they idealize themselves to be, they can create a whole persona, they can invent prestige and this gives them a little bit of that "will to power" but it is a surrogate, a cheap substitute.  Do not surrender to a false sense of community. What is good you ask? To create and to forge, to distribute energy towards a creative or destructive end.  The sculptor develops his muscles to one end- to transfer a blow of the mallet to the chisel.  He has a definite aim in sight, a vision and blow by blow, chip by chip falls away revealing that vision.  That is life, that is the way out of nihilism, flee from this web that gives you a false sense of achievement.  In nature everything is used up, nothing excess remains, a man ought to be busy enough that he has no time to devote to strength training, his life itself should be his exercise and sport.  Take the character, Wolf Larson, from Jack London's novel, "The Sea Wolf", here is a man which developed himself and his body to a purpose not arbitrarily but out of necessity and his life's activity.  Lifting weight up and down so that you may lift more weight up and down is the most absurd thing.  Lift instead the gang ropes and pulleys of heavy machinery, lift instead the weight of steel cargos and sledgehammers. If you want strength get it primarily through an active life.

Quote :

To conclude, life is a struggle. Nature is a world of war. Weight-lifting is symbolic of this cosmic battle. The gym is my church, my place of communion with cosmic power. I will continue in my endeavors to become the strongest version of myself. This is my life and my meaning.

Life is a struggle against time, in Nature nothing struggles and nothing is at war because time and life are both eternal, only the man isolated from nature and eternity imagines the world to be a battlefield.

Ephemeron, men have always engaged in sport. It's not life-denying or a "surrogate activity" for really living... It certainly can become that(some people become too obsessed and it can even become stressful on one's heart), but you can't make the universal claim that it's not really living. Exercise is good for one's health... you live longer if you exercise!

Quote :

We find ourselves born weak and so try to give strength to our muscles by repetitive lifting. This though, does not develop symmetry, and often we compensate one aspect of our lives to correct a deficiency in another.

Lifting brings out one's natural symmetry. Someone with good genetics (good symmetry) becomes more attractive after lifting. To say that lifting doesn't increase your chances with women (thus life) is absurd. Lifting isn't a "compensation" for a "lack" in another area.. It accentuates an internal desire for symmetry and strength... It creates discipline and love for beauty that can cross over into intellectual pursuits.

Quote :

Weight lifting is incredibly useless and it is a poor substitute to compensate where strength is not naturally developed from real physical labor or activity

Useless... that's why fighters lift, right? It's good for your overall health and mental well being... Physical labor,lol... you mean that physical labor where people develop countless injuries after years of slaving away, putting their bodies in very unnatural positions to make a buck... What's real "activity"... like running outside? Why can't running and lifting be apart of one's workout routine? It's preferable to have some type of lifting in ones exercise routine (doesn't necessarily have to be bodybuilding )

Quote :

The need to be more than you are which arises when one strives for an ideal. Here, this ideal you create for yourself is one of immense strength, size perhaps and endurance

What is wrong with an ideal of physical strength? Maybe it's not the highest ideal, but it's only one ascept of one's self. To lift doesn't mean you're necessarily avoiding something else, or that you're wasting your energy. If anything it gives you energy for those higher ideals.

Quote :

What is a post but evidence of a life unspent, does it not represent to the man, a sunset that was missed or a moment lost?

Ok, so the real activity all these weightlifters and silly internet posters are missing is watching a tear jerking sunset, lol...

Quote :

His love underlies all, and is equal to fear, cannot justify itself when one goes back in time.
One wonders how awareness of sameness is possible when divergence is not already in effect.
How does one love what one is not aware of?
How does self-consciousness precede consciousness, and how does consciousness precede life, or a certain level of organization?

Eros in ancient Greece was different though, wasn't it? The love of what is real. Now it is the love of the unknown. Maybe because physical comfort has made love of reality, love of real people, less of a necessity for one's well being.

I imagine Agape was held in higher regard because one wouldn't want to feel a slave to emotions no matter how strong.

When struggle, warfare (agon) was agreed as the essence of existing, then a mind sought allies to share in the fight.
Eros is blind agape, an expenditure of excess energies driven by a hunger, an irrational, need to expand, to grow, indiscriminately, for a male.
With women eros acquired discrimination, turning her into a filtering agency.
with males this discrimination became more refined, more lucid, it became friendship, camaraderie.

The erotic component is always present, as the underlying intuitive, drive, that need resting on the sensation of lack, of insecurity, vulnerability.

Ephemeron wrote: " The need to be more than you are which arises when one strives for an ideal.  Here, this ideal you create for yourself is one of immense strength, size perhaps and endurance.  The weightlifter and the hamster in a cage are the same though both striving for activity but not truly living."

I feel very alive when I weight lift. The hamster doesn't strive for an ideal. And what is so wrong with striving for an ideal? Should I settle for mediocrity? Nay, not on my watch.

Another grave error you made is thinking that weightlifting is useless haha as if it doesn't spill over into functional things like combat, survival, social status, and psychological well-being.

perpetualburn wrote:

you live longer if you exercise!

You live shorter if you exercise. Every animal has a fixed amount of heart beats. The brightest light goes out the fastest. Humans are designed to live for thirty years. I find those who cling on to life for the mere purpose of existing extremely pathetic. Take the Africans who have seven kids as a social security for their old age, compared to the old South Koreans who commit suicide in order to leave their retirement money to their kids.

Ephemeron wrote:

You do it because you are aware of a lack, a need which you can only answer in what really is an artificial manner.

All life is deprivation, a hole to be filled. There where those who stayed the same, who changed for the better, who changed for the worse. You can never tell at the given moment who has changed for the better. But one thing is for sure, those who stayed content and the same, where evolutionary dead ends.

perpetualburn wrote:

Ephemeron, men have always engaged in sport. It's not life-denying or a "surrogate activity" for really living...

Are you sure?  Here, Mr. Rage goes on about how his lifting is a means to release his inner rage, going further compares himself to a lion, (which is caged).   Tell me, what is denied of man today?  If an activity is take up which satisfies ones need to feel that very thing that is denied, how is that not a surrogate activity?

Quote :

Lifting brings out one's natural symmetry...

Show me the man who is active and he will be the sort which laughs at authority, and what you call intellect.  His condition is not to live within the mind, but to have such an active mind that his activity overflows in all areas of his physical life to the point that nothing about him is deficient, this is symmetry.  

The body requires active forces which act against it from all angles, weight lifting will develop the muscle only in one direction.  It requires strict dedication to uniform movement and technique.  The difference between muscle developed from physical labor and monotonous lifting are obvious.  That body which is the result of years of diverse labor, which seeks out the most strenuous professions and physically trying occupations, will be one of great strength and symmetry.  Not in the “interest of a buck” is it the result of, no, this is your specialized man (weightlifter) but in the interest of hardening oneself to life’s trials.  It is like an oak tree which grows in the open field being exposed to the winds, the freezing snows, and driving rains.  We consider beauty to be that which unfolds in harmony to its surroundings and nature.  The oak is the symbol of strength and beauty when it achieves that fullness of form that only occurs when there are constant forces which act upon it from all sides.

primal rage wrote:

I feel very alive when I weight lift. The hamster doesn't strive for an ideal. And what is so wrong with striving for an ideal? Should I settle for mediocrity? Nay, not on my watch.

Just like you, that hamster, spinning around in a little wheel has a very real need, and that need is for an active life.  Sitting there confined in its cage, the means by which it may reach that end are limited.  Seeing so many closed doors before it, why should it not become enraged too?  Can it not be a lion in its own mind as well?  What if the prisoner in his cell, could not lift or play sports?  Would he not turn his nature and his excess energy on other prisoners?  And when there were no others, would he not turn against himself?  That wheel, becomes the meaning of life to the hamster as does a barbell to the prisoner, they represent goals and provide some sense of satisfaction.  But, it is not their nature to run on a plastic wheel or lift iron plates, this they do to stay active when real activity is inaccessible to them.  It is merely a valve to get rid of that surplus energy that an inactive life creates.  But were we to give them the key, that hamster and prisoner would both return to doing what they were born to.  

Quote :

Another grave error you made is thinking that weightlifting is useless haha as if it doesn't spill over into functional things like combat, survival, social status, and psychological well-being.

I did not engage you because of some gripe with weightlifters or the sport but to give an interpretation of your account of the “metaphysics” of weightlifting.  You reject nihilism yet you cling to the ideal of being more than you are. You have idealized weightlifting, by imagining in it something that incites a feeling of nobleness in yourself.  You clearly say, that it frees you temporarily from your constraints and gives a feeling of euphoria, of “victory”.  These I reject as false sensations, conceived by the mind which can not exist in a state of contradiction.  Weightlifting does not make one noble.  All noble action resides in the deed.  What is noble then?  What lives without contradictions to its nature.  The wolf, the lion, the stag, the eagle, the scorpion, all these we see a nobleness of race in, but not so in the dog or the hamster. What is noble is unspoiled by civilization, it is un domestic, it is un tameable and thus forever wild.  In them there is no surrogate activity they are what they were born to be and nothing more do they aspire to be. They are the antithesis of nihilism. Put what is noble in chains and it will chew off its limbs.  Put it in a cage and it will froth and foam at the mouth and chew off its captor’s limbs whenever the chance arises.  For them activity is pure and unlimited, they are at all times what they appear to be.

Ephemeron wrote:"You reject nihilism yet you cling to the ideal of being more than you are."

I'm not denying my nature, but rather dominating it. If striving for an ideal to become a more powerful version of myself is considered nihilistic, then so be it! I do what I want. I'm not going to chain myself up to someones strange and emasculating version of nobility/nihilism.


 Ephemeron wrote: "Weightlifting does not make one noble."

According to who?

Ephemeron wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

Ephemeron, men have always engaged in sport. It's not life-denying or a "surrogate activity" for really living...

Are you sure?  Here, Mr. Rage goes on about how his lifting is a means to release his inner rage, going further compares himself to a lion, (which is caged).   Tell me, what is denied of man today?  If an activity is take up which satisfies ones need to feel that very thing that is denied, how is that not a surrogate activity?

Quote :

Lifting brings out one's natural symmetry...

Show me the man who is active and he will be the sort which laughs at authority, and what you call intellect.  His condition is not to live within the mind, but to have such an active mind that his activity overflows in all areas of his physical life to the point that nothing about him is deficient, this is symmetry.  

The body requires active forces which act against it from all angles, weight lifting will develop the muscle only in one direction.  It requires strict dedication to uniform movement and technique.  The difference between muscle developed from physical labor and monotonous lifting are obvious.  That body which is the result of years of diverse labor, which seeks out the most strenuous professions and physically trying occupations, will be one of great strength and symmetry.  Not in the “interest of a buck” is it the result of, no, this is your specialized man (weightlifter) but in the interest of hardening oneself to life’s trials.  It is like an oak tree which grows in the open field being exposed to the winds, the freezing snows, and driving rains.  We consider beauty to be that which unfolds in harmony to its surroundings and nature.  The oak is the symbol of strength and beauty when it achieves that fullness of form that only occurs when there are constant forces which act upon it from all sides.

primal rage wrote:

I feel very alive when I weight lift. The hamster doesn't strive for an ideal. And what is so wrong with striving for an ideal? Should I settle for mediocrity? Nay, not on my watch.

Just like you, that hamster, spinning around in a little wheel has a very real need, and that need is for an active life.  Sitting there confined in its cage, the means by which it may reach that end are limited.  Seeing so many closed doors before it, why should it not become enraged too?  Can it not be a lion in its own mind as well?  What if the prisoner in his cell, could not lift or play sports?  Would he not turn his nature and his excess energy on other prisoners?  And when there were no others, would he not turn against himself?  That wheel, becomes the meaning of life to the hamster as does a barbell to the prisoner, they represent goals and provide some sense of satisfaction.  But, it is not their nature to run on a plastic wheel or lift iron plates, this they do to stay active when real activity is inaccessible to them.  It is merely a valve to get rid of that surplus energy that an inactive life creates.  But were we to give them the key, that hamster and prisoner would both return to doing what they were born to.  

Quote :

Another grave error you made is thinking that weightlifting is useless haha as if it doesn't spill over into functional things like combat, survival, social status, and psychological well-being.

I did not engage you because of some gripe with weightlifters or the sport but to give an interpretation of your account of the “metaphysics” of weightlifting.  You reject nihilism yet you cling to the ideal of being more than you are. You have idealized weightlifting, by imagining in it something that incites a feeling of nobleness in yourself.  You clearly say, that it frees you temporarily from your constraints and gives a feeling of euphoria, of “victory”.  These I reject as false sensations, conceived by the mind which can not exist in a state of contradiction.  Weightlifting does not make one noble.  All noble action resides in the deed.  What is noble then?  What lives without contradictions to its nature.  The wolf, the lion, the stag, the eagle, the scorpion, all these we see a nobleness of race in, but not so in the dog or the hamster. What is noble is unspoiled by civilization, it is un domestic, it is un tameable and thus forever wild.  In them there is no surrogate activity they are what they were born to be and nothing more do they aspire to be. They are the antithesis of nihilism. Put what is noble in chains and it will chew off its limbs.  Put it in a cage and it will froth and foam at the mouth and chew off its captor’s limbs whenever the chance arises.  For them activity is pure and unlimited, they are at all times what they appear to be.

I enjoyed reading that.


I'm taking this chance to insert some links on the history of the Oak-tree ; )

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

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

Quote :

You live shorter if you exercise. Every animal has a fixed amount of heart beats. The brightest light goes out the fastest. Humans are designed to live for thirty years

Really, cmon... where are you getting this from?

Quote :

Tell me, what is denied of man today? If an activity is take up which satisfies ones need to feel that very thing that is denied, how is that not a surrogate activity?

Athletic activity isn't denied by society, it's just apart of one's overall activity. It's not necessarily a way of draining oneself of energy that one can't discharge fully because of society's restrictions... It's a way of enhancing development/excellence... a lack of culture that promotes athletics and education in a wholesome way means one has to do it himself.

Quote :

Show me the man who is active and he will be the sort which laughs at authority, and what you call intellect. His condition is not to live within the mind, but to have such an active mind that his activity overflows in all areas of his physical life to the point that nothing about him is deficient, this is symmetry.

He laughs at authority while finding virtue in work? I like your definition of symmetry though and don't find it in disagreement with a man who exercises.

Quote :

The body requires active forces which act against it from all angles, weight lifting will develop the muscle only in one direction. It requires strict dedication to uniform movement and technique. The difference between muscle developed from physical labor and monotonous lifting are obvious.

Lifting need not be "monotonous." Exercise evolves with education, a synergy develops.

Quote :

That body which is the result of years of diverse labor, which seeks out the most strenuous professions and physically trying occupations, will be one of great strength and symmetry. Not in the “interest of a buck” is it the result of, no, this is your specialized man (weightlifter) but in the interest of hardening oneself to life’s trials.

So how exactly is exercising not "hardening oneself to life's trials." The "trials" of life extend to more than just the work week. That one demands of oneself more and prepares his mind, body, spirit for it. That one's ideal is one's own, and not carved wholly from the hard, "respectable," "unavoidable" pressures of "making a living."

Quote :

It is like an oak tree which grows in the open field being exposed to the winds, the freezing snows, and driving rains. We consider beauty to be that which unfolds in harmony to its surroundings and nature. The oak is the symbol of strength and beauty when it achieves that fullness of form that only occurs when there are constant forces which act upon it from all sides.

I like this. I don't find it in conflict to the weightlifter.

The body is a tool. There is no point in sharpening a sword if you never use it to cut. You simply have an anachronistic ornament that looks pretty but has no purpose.
If you have a sword, a weapon of war, but do not intend to kill anyone, why then do you have a sword? Is it a substitute for a missing phallus?

Fitness should be an indication of health, not of the body but of the active mind which it is the effect of. One should be fit because one's restless Will drives one's body relentlessly, strength through stress.

Hardest exercise I've done is the Kendo Haya Suburi:



You need to do a hundred of these, as quickly as possible, as a warm-up before proper practice... in addition to the usual stretching/limbering up.
It's exercise with a purpose in that it teaches one how to step into range and out rapidly in order to make a strike. In Kendo, an inch matters, so an appreciation of distance is crucial.

Exercise should be done with a purpose, an application and the best is probably a martial art or the necessity of hard physical labour.

For many however it can be the ornament, a hyper-masculine compensation, draping the self in the symbols of masculinity (big muscles and such) concealing what is lacking. Fitness of the body becomes an accessory, purchased in the gym and utilized as an offering in the sexual game. A pirated symbol of sexual fitness.

Apaosha wrote: "The body is a tool. There is no point is sharpening a sword if you never use it to cut. You simply have an anachronistic ornament that looks pretty but has no purpose."

Note that I don't, primarily, lift weights for bodybuilding, i.e., mere aesthetics. My type of weight-lifting is centered around developing raw, brute strength. Bodybuilders use a different type of weight-lifting training that is centered around sarcoplasmic hypertrophy ( gaining mass and shaping muscles ) and powerlifters/strongmen training is centered around myofibrillar hypertrophy ( raw power and strength ). I train, primarily, as already stated according to the latter. I engage in combat, so the powerlifting is functional for me outside of the gym too; my core ( legs and lower back ) are rock solid allowing me to generate more power for kicks, punches, body slams, etc. Also, I appreciate weightlifting as an art in of itself - kind of like sculpting.

Sexual assault is a crime of violence and perhaps PR is using his body, realising his physical attributes can also be a weapon, as an assurance of his physical safety. It also involves a healing process for his mind and creates a mental firewall and gives him direction.  Physical self-care is an area that people often over look and engaging in self-constructing behaviour, such as exercising is a valuable tool to combat not only disease but it increases self esteem.  I admire both his mind and body for his courage and strength.

Thank you, Reasonvemotion. Some people are trying to overcomplicate and take shots at my weight-lifting mission. Haters are gonna hate.

Apoasha wrote:

For many however it can be the ornament, a hyper-masculine compensation, draping the self in the symbols of masculinity (big muscles and such) concealing what is lacking. Fitness of the body becomes an accessory, purchased in the gym and utilized as an offering in the sexual game. A pirated symbol of sexual fitness.

I once knew someone who went to the gym religiously, and use to bore me to death telling me about the guys there, how big their muscles were and how much they could bench press. After a while I began to see that this place held some serious homoerotic attraction for him. Even though this guy never developed much musculature, he would obsess over these guys who did, and buy endless muscle mags and protein shakes. There is something intensely narcissistic about a male admiring his own body or that of other males, something which has strong homoerotic overtones. Many body building magazines have cover images indistinguishable from those on gay magazines.

Body building magazine cover:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Gay magazine cover:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

However, nothing could have prepared me for the magnitude of sweaty homoeroticism I found on bodybuilding.com – the world's most popular bodybuilding forum and, apparently, the go-to place for guys who have no idea what being gay means to discuss being gay. It's a bit like stumbling in on a rudimentary social studies class, where – instead of children who understand the very basic facts of life – the only questions are from bros who can't grasp that the only thing that makes someone gay is their attraction to members of the same sex. For example, there are no less than 20 threads about whether or not wearing a scarf makes you gay.

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

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

Nice example of how males have degenerated to metro-sexual gits.
Also an example of how the current environment is producing narcissism.
For an example of schizophrenia, all you have to do is visit some of these online forums dedicated to philosophy.



Eroticism, is an aspect of feminization.
The feminine forms of seduction becoming the only acceptable ones.
Men are forced to display themselves, as females do, turning into a game of appearances.

Then these hypocrites claim to believe that appearances do not matter when they are defined by a very superficial, static, artificial version of them.
They think appearance is simple image, and because image is malleable, they begin to believe essence is also easily constructed.



Appearance = The totality of sense data becoming apparent, interpreted by the brain, through their (inter)activity.
Appearance is dynamic, not static.
Beauty, symmetry, is the inheritance of health which may or may not be effective in the immediate.

Superficial = A temporal designation.
In this case what can be manipulated, by the individual, is focused on, giving the illusion that everything determined is easily and immediately correctable.
Wearing clothing, makeup, getting surgery, using chemical enhancement, are all indications of human malleability.

This leads to the feel-good error of assuming that intelligence, potential, is also as easily correctable.
That's why we get the mythology concerning education as the heal-all factor.


Homosexuality is on the rise.
Had an experience last month which reminded me of it.

I like to joke around with everyone, and sex is always an easy source for comedy.
This black-guy, for some reason took it the wrong way.
For a year he used to make sexual comments, while looking at my crotch.
I brushed it off, knowing he was probably bisexual, because he's also married with kids.
It didn't bother me.
Then a month ago he make the same comment, but this time he brushes his hand against my crotch.
a week later I'm going up some stairs with a female coworker, and he's coming down it.
Again, he reaches for my crotch, licking his lips and saying something.
That's when I lose it, 'cause this fag doesn't know Satyr is a 'no-shit' kind a guy, and if pushed far enough there's no saying what he may do.

But there's a no-tolerance rule at my job, so I have to be careful.

Still, I tell him that if he does that again something bad is going to happen, and someone may get hurt; maybe me, or maybe him.
But something is definitely going to happen.
He got the message.
Ever since that day every time he sees me he is very respectful and careful.
He calls me 'sir'.

Solution found.

My experiences at the gym, when I used to go, were positive.
I kept to myself, didn't even ask for a spotter when I benched.
I always liked to be self-sufficient, and would rather do less than have to depend on another.
My friends used to want to buddy-up, but I always refused, knowing that if I became dependent on them then when they lost interest, because I knew they eventually would, that I would then have to fall back form whatever level I had reached.

For me the gym was a solitary place.
I rarely conversed with the usual, for more than a hi and 'how's it going?'.

But being who I am I watched.
I noticed most of the guys there were not really training, they were posing.
Some were there for the girls, others for the boys.
The younger ones used to try to impress, lifting weights they could not without help, and then walking around with chests out and arms extended to the side, to pretend they were bigger than what they were.
It was pathetic, actually.
Reminded me of my observations at the dance clubs, back when I used to go to them, once in a blue moon.

There were all the girls dancing in a group, or in twos, in the middle - you know showing off their tits and asses, overt sexual displays imitating copulation movements.
Then there were all these dudes dancing around them, swaying, trying to catch their eye, and shit.

It was interesting from an anthropological perspective.
Gone were the days when a boy asked a girl to dance, one on one.
Now it's become indirect, displaying, feigning disinterest, being cool and aloof.

A friend of mine, and I, were at a club once. I saw this girl swaying by the dance floor.
Black guys used to go over and talk to her - I assumed they were asking her to dance - and were turned down.
I thought she might not be into black guys, so I went over and asked her myself, and got promptly turned down.
Went back to the table, my ego shattered, and told my friend what had happened.
I told him to watch her.

There she still was swaying right on the edge of the dance floor, turning down guy after guy.
Told my friend that she was there for the thrill fo the attention. She loved being approached and having that power to reject.
There was a slight curl to her lip, like she was enjoying it.
My friend was a bit drunk, so after he watched a bit he had enough. He got up and walked over to her, and told her exactly what i had said. Then he came back to the table.

Suddenly she began looking our way.
In about fifteen minutes she was at our table.
Fuckin' classic.
Bitches be crazy.
Once you know why and what is going on, it's all natural. You realize how similar to animals we are, despite what these life-hating cowards arrogant humble ones think.

Sure, it's no secret that some bodybuilders are fags just as I've noticed how some philosophers cling to intellectualisms to compensate for their physical weakness and girlish bodies. These types are rather pathetic; they are too much of cowards to acquire physical strength, so they hide inside of their minds like the pussies they are and perform " mental weightlifting " via rambling about dull, unpractical drivel. And using big words as a way of flexing their " intellectual muscles". Weaklings.

Also, this nonsense about weightlifting being homoerotic is exactly what feminists say as way of crushing down male camaraderie and virility. The ones who view weightlifting as such are probably the most effeminate and faggy; projecting their own homosexual framework onto everything."Get your head out of the gutter!" seems appropriate here.

Primal Rage wrote:

Sure, it's no secret that some bodybuilders are fags just as I've noticed how some philosophers cling to intellectualisms to compensate for their physical weakness and girlish bodies. These types are rather pathetic; they are too much of cowards to acquire physical strength, so they hide inside of their minds like the pussies they are and perform " mental weightlifting " via rambling about dull, unpractical drivel. And using big words as a way of flexing their " intellectual muscles". Weaklings.

Also, this nonsense about weightlifting being homoerotic is exactly what feminists say as way of crushing down male camaraderie and virility. The ones who view weightlifting as such are probably the most effeminate and faggy; projecting their own homosexual framework onto everything."Get your head out of the gutter!" seems appropriate here.

indeed.
Athleticism is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is showing your body.
The homoerotic element need not go beyond a certain limit.

Just on a side-note:

We are ALL compensating for something or other.
This is like saying someone is projecting, or has fear in him or her.

We are all weak and ignorant, to varying degrees.
This does not make us equal, but only creatures sharing in the same existence.

All these are part of the human condition.

Where things diverge is the method, the motive, and the quality.

PR

The descent or ancestry of weight lifting traces back to the beginning of recorded history, where man's interest with physical prowess can be found in many ancient writings.  A 5,000 y.o. Chinese text documents how soldiers had to pass a lifting test and many pre-historic tribes had a traditional test of "manhood" which was the lifting of a special rock.  To understand life in ancient Egypt one only needs to see the depictions on the walls of the pyramids and see that a variety of sporting activities, including weight lifting, were part of ancient Egypt. The winner and the loser were both applauded, the winner for his superiority and the loser for his sporting spirit.  Weight lifting is indeed a noble sport.

reasonvemotion wrote: "A 5,000 y.o. Chinese text documents how soldiers had to pass a lifting test and many pre-historic tribes had a traditional test of "manhood" which was the lifting of a special rock."

Interesting; I never knew about that. That's cool. I will have to read on that more.

And thank you once again for making an intelligent and meaningful comment

Primal Rage wrote:

And thank you once again for making an intelligent and meaningful comment Smile

Don't thank someone for being an echo chamber, you fucking retard . The greatest service one can be to another is to prove them wrong. I kind of see you as a emotionally stunted nihilist trying to compensate for a deficit of some kind, and this is your outlet. So have i proven you wrong? Or have you still not learned?