The meta-physics of weight lifting.

Slaughtz wrote:

...that way one didn't find themselves with a mass of children they could not care or provide for, and instead focused on aggregating their life blood into one or two children.

Contraceptives is why we have so few children.
People have a desire to fuck, that's a strong developed drive. Then babies just happen and then we have a drive to raise and protect and support those children. The human mind doesn't have a strong drive to think about getting babies for the abstracted goal of passing on one's genes. People feel that something is missing and they can intellectually try to connect the dots but it's not a strong drive.

This is the age of disconnect between the intellectual and the base. And so, the strategy is to swallow society's new blueprint of how to do things or someone has to come up with their own plan and engineer/reprogram themselves. Both are still disconnected at a fundamental basis.

K-type vs R-type reproductive strategies. The more intelligent and responsible people are picking up the slack for all the R-type fuck ups. Just as the bad guys are wasting all up the cheap credit, dooming us all into oblivion. Silver lining is that the K-type thrives under times of scarcity. A Mad Max scenario is gonna be fun.

Anfang wrote:

The human mind doesn't have a strong drive to think about getting babies for the abstracted goal of passing on one's genes.

I was talking about a subconscious, evolved disposition - not a conscious decision. Though you may be right about the trend rather being an increase in the drive/biological perception of importance in raising the progeny you already have. Still, it's fair enough to say that contraception and culture is the reason. I didn't really look into the birth rates in history and what correlations there were with other conditions (economic, etc.) I simply observed the trend that Caucasians tend to be more reserved about bearing children in the USA than others.

There will be Blood wrote:

K-type vs R-type reproductive strategies.

The R-type doesn't plan ahead much. Yep, that type thrives in an abundance environment. The K-type is more worried about stockpiling for the hard winter. In modern times K-type and R-type are forced to live under the same law and share their resources. The R-type is exploiting that advantage to the best of his abilities.

Long lasting relations is a strength of the K-type, not only in romantic area but also in the economic and social sphere. But we have become very flexible and mobile in our arrangements. In that scenario pretending is a very powerful tool.

Let's take the PUA community. They suggest - have an abundance mentality; fake it until you make it. The abundance mentality is right there with the R-type environment and the fake it until you make it can be interpreted in various ways. It's true that we can change our focus, that we have a capability to adapt to the environment and that process requires discipline - Repeated actions being one of the tools we can use.

Yet it also makes people into pretenders for the most part - to promise the female some larger than life experience. And nobody will look behind the curtain and see the weaknesses because that takes time.... and when time is up, the R-type will have moved on to greener pastures which is easy, even incentivized today.

The K-type has a problem with group distinction today. He has an emotional drive to bond within his own group, to be trusting and save his energy of distrust and critical inquiry for the members outside the group. Today he's being told that all of humanity is in his group and that makes him more blind than the average member of the R-tribe whose natural inclinations are closer to view people as a bunch of baby sea-turtles who are all trying to crawl to the ocean while most of them won't make it. Each is on his own.
If the K-type is to survive then he must begin to form his own groups and the hierarchies that go along with it.

Slaughtz wrote:

I simply observed the trend that Caucasians tend to be more reserved about bearing children in the USA than others.

This may sound strange but in a way I think that some of the 'minorities' in the US are better suited for modern life as it is now.

Some advice to no one in particular: I've been squatting for almost 2 years, but only recently did it finally 'click' and my squat shot up from 180x5 to 250x7. I recommend doing bodyweight squats until your quads are jelly and then you'll HAVE TO do them correctly, then it'll 'click' and you'll be a squatting champ.

Same with deadlifts. Just put two 45s on there and do as many as you can with good form (as far as you know). Then, once you think you can't do anymore, something will 'click' and you'll be doing more in truly good form.

I wish I did this when i started lifting.

Ephemeron wrote: " I did not imagine or conceive of a way to discredit you, you did so yourself.  Look above, you have not "driven your enemies before you"  you have not "heard the lament of their women" as you "crush them beneath your heel".  See what you yourself have written, your anger, your hatred for your enemies, your memories of childhood experiences of being bullied, your rejection of the world today, these you admit are your real drives.  Yet this is not really the solution, lifting weights and punching a heavy bag is only a tame way to unleash your aggression, to let off steam, bread and circuses.  As a means to fight it is relevant only so long as your opponents are "civil" and do not fight dirty.  It is good for a "fight club" but this too is a surrogate activity.  If I have any impression on you, if my criticism is of any help is to say this:  Abandon the surrogate for the actual.  To say "I prefer the wolf to the dog, the dog that bites and growls at me to the dog that cowers and hides, the enemy to the friend, the conflict to the peace,  and all that is truly resistance and acts naturally against my striving.  Resistance is a means to propulsion, to acceleration, the blood cell has velocity because it is in a vein.  I am the energy trapped inside a conduit, and the greater the resistance the greater my rate of travel, velocity is power, power is flow, flow is conductivity, and direction is the means to the end and that end is activity, unlimited and unceasing."



I see what you are getting at, and I agree for the most part. But it should be noted that it isn't exactly the easiest thing for a man to be a man in modernity. Technologies have made it increasingly more difficult for man to unleash his savage nature. I do plan to " Abandon the surrogate for the actual" ( if you catch my drift ) but I will still weight-lift to increase my virility.



To Laconphile, I started out with a  5X5 training system ( 5 sets of 5 reps ). I'm training for brute strength, so I focus on heavy weights and low repetitions. High reps have their place, but that tends to emphasize endurance rather than raw strength and power. I'm benching 255 for reps, squat is rather weak ( doing reps with 230 lbs ), and my deadlift PR is 405 lbs.

I only recommend high reps until you get a form epiphany. After that, lower reps are best.

You sound pretty strong to be doing 5x5. Are you still getting progress with it? You should check out reverse pyramid and leangains.

When I first began weightlifting, about 4 months ago, I started with the 5x5 method. I now have to do the 5X3 ( 5 sets of 3 reps ) because the weight is getting heavier each session; I add 5-10 pounds on each compound exercise daily. If I go over 5 reps, that means the weight is too light, and I need to go heavier. I've heard of reverse pyramid training before, but have never tried it. I will have to give it a try and see if it works for me. You could do the 5x5 method too; strong and heavy are relative. Work with the weight that is appropriate for the 5x5 for you.

I think you outlived the benefits of 5 work sets. Reverse pyramid is the opposite approach, it has you doing only 1 PR work set, once a week.

Give it a try for a few weeks, at the very least it will give your body a chance to rest and grow, and you'll be stronger if you decide to return to a voluminous training routine.

What got you interested in weight-lifting?

Being fat and wanting to impress others.

What kept me interested? Ironically, gaining the ability to not give a damn what others thought of me.

Put simply, I started because I lacked testosterone, and I continued because I gained testosterone.

Very good, Lacon. Your transition is admirable. You didn't settle for mediocrity. I dig the spirit.

Thanks. It's like my vanity is committing suicide through weight-lifting.  

What's better than being strong and attractive? Not needing to be strong and attractive.

Satyr wrote:

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.

Yeah, so I'm not going to search your rants for a justification of the positions your put forward to me.

You seem to have changed your stance as we discussed.

You first say - 'Love is an antidote to fear. So, it is motivated by fear, and is a reaction to fear.

Apaosha wrote:

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.

In response to Apaosha you say, '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.'

It is YOU who created the chicken and egg scenario by implying and agreeing to the summation that love is a band aide fix to fear, and therefore has no place beyond it.

My response to Apaosha is this,

One can be strong and impose one's will to assert an order due to love of said order, not fear of losing said order.

Love is far more empowering than fear, it doesn't rely on perceived threat to motivate one, but the continual affection for the loved. It is not difficult to wake in the morning with a zest for life and will to grow and overcome the trials of the future.

It is not fear that motivates this zest, but love of life and love of overcoming.

Satyr wrote:

In the above post we see an example of a capitulation after the passion has been exposed to reason.

Exposed to reason? I see no reason to justify that love is a band aide fix, which was your initial claim to me, and my primary contention with you.

You seem to have backed away from that yourself, brave Satyr.

Satyr wrote:

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.

This assumes that I did not hold this position before communicating with you, which I did and have evidence via my posts at ILP that stated this exact fact.

As I said above, my contention with you was your representation of love. Still no justification for your initial claim.

Satyr wrote:

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.

As I opened with, I'm not expected to read your mind, nor am I wasting my time going to read through all your bullshit to find some justification for your claims.

You're the one that asserts in this thread love is a band aide fix. Justify it, in this thread. To me.

Keep in mind, that I do not downplay fears role in survival, but that fear and love exist as separate influences that arose and persisted not as a reaction to the other, but due to their exclusive benefits to our survival.

Satyr wrote:

Notice, also, how he detaches from this exposure: the "let's agree to disagree" where the perspectives are equated by a uniforming ignorance.

I didn't feel inclined to argue in a circle with you, but my disposition is different at the moment.

Again, you offered no justification, my perspective is above yours, but I didn't feel inclined to convince a stubborn middle aged man. Of what relevance to me is your approval? Very little.

Satyr wrote:

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.

Your position is not valid. Love is not a band aide fix.

I offered you it's independent influences beyond fear, which you didn't deny, therefore, justifying that it isn't around as a reaction to fear.

You provided nothing to counter this position.

Satyr wrote:

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.

I can't deal with your thoughts which you don't express. You're the one who says fear arose first, not me. I've no obligation to consider address a position that I don't hold, and hasn't been properly addressed to me.

I'm a pragmatist, so I do want to talk about the usefulness of love. Yet, I'm willing to discuss it's origins.

You haven't provided anything to address, that I haven't addressed.

Satyr wrote:

His love underlies all, and is equal to fear, cannot justify itself when one goes back in time.

I did not say love and fear are equal, but their integrity is on equal ground. They both arose in the same manner, therefore, to deny the integrity of one, is to deny the integrity of both.

Satyr wrote:

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?

I do not wonder these questions. Explain the relevance of these questions to anything we've discussed.

Why need I love that which I'm unaware of? What relevance is the self-consciousness to consciousness?

As you said, things that organized pre-consciousness weren't doing it with intent, therefore, the fact of their organization does not relate to fear or love.

Satyr wrote:

Fear, on the other hand, is a reaction to the absence of awareness.

Care to justify that?

I'm more inclined to say fear is a reaction to threats, or the potential of threats that one is aware of. If one doesn't believe there's a stranger with a knife behind them, or any potential for a stranger with a knife behind them, they're not going to be afraid, even if these is a stranger with a knife behind them.

Satyr wrote:

Love required habituation, knowledge of otherness. Fear does not.

Ah, I see. Now I'm following your feeble attempt to justify your claims.

Justify that fear is a reaction to the absence of awareness.
 

Satyr wrote:

So, where no certainty is absolute, he can depart, feeling secure that his position is just as possible as any other.

I wonder how much of your words are really just you projecting your own insecurities onto others.

This seems a prime example.

Quote :

My response to Apaosha is this,

One can be strong and impose one's will to assert an order due to love of said order, not fear of losing said order.

Love is far more empowering than fear, it doesn't rely on perceived threat to motivate one, but the continual affection for the loved. It is not difficult to wake in the morning with a zest for life and will to grow and overcome the trials of the future.

It is not fear that motivates this zest, but love of life and love of overcoming.

You didn't understand my post because you are a typical moron.

Order is imposed as a result of an absence, a need. The act of imposing order is the filling of a void, the shaping of the apparent. Chaos is natural, Order is an imposition.

It is motivated by lack; all motivations originate from lack. One who lacks nothing has no motivations. Absolute power is indifference and is characterized by non-activity, inertness. Activity therefore, existence, is characterized by lack; a movement towards completion.

In the same way a man invades the body of a woman and fertilizes her with his seed not because of love but because of lack, because of fear - his mortality and his need to replicate himself through her body.
In this context, love becomes the numbing agent which counteracts, as Satyr has said before, the fight or flight mechanisms of both parties which evolved before and must be counteracted in order for the 2 organisms to co-operate.

You are motivated by fear because you see in the other the opportunity for your own oblivion. The other is something you can immerse yourself in, submerge yourself in, numb yourself in. Love for you becomes the ultimate numbing agent and antidote to an uncaring, indifferent reality.

There is little wonder that filth like you deified this cowardice. The Christians and their modern mutation, secular humanism. Memes themselves become numbing agents. Needy minds act like pussies, aching with desire to be filled and fertilized with another's seed, another's Will to power, another's becoming.

A Chaos of emotions needing an outside source to impose Order, the other.

Love.

Joe Schmoe wrote:

Satyr wrote:

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.

Yeah, so I'm not going to search your rants for a justification of the positions your put forward to me.

You seem to have changed your stance as we discussed.

You first say - 'Love is an antidote to fear. So, it is motivated by fear, and is a reaction to fear.

And I see no reason to waste more time on a moron who did not understand my position to begin with, and now comforts himself with the idea that Satyr changed his.
It's typical amongst the herd of imbeciles, to face the same method of accusing the other before one takes an account of one's own faults. In this case you, like many of your kind, show as an example of my ideas, as you are quick to unburden yourself from the possible error, accusing Satyr of a change, rather than one forced upon you from an increasing in understanding of Satyr's views.
Because you are a hypocrite and a coward, like many on ILP, instead of saying "I am changing my mind on what I thought your positions were" to "I'm glad to see you backing off from your positions"
In the latter "your positions" are merely your understanding of them, and they have little to do with what I am actually saying.

I suspect that those who now also accuse me of claiming to be an "overman" or an "alpha-male" may also find me more "humble" if they actually understand what I am saying and why, rather than running, in fear, casting behind them ink-blots of fear, in reaction to what they think I am saying.
But...who cares, really?
It's fun watching simpletons attack the figments in their own imagination.

I also considered addressing your mascot d(69 and his accusation of me being a "capitalist", because that's almost the opposite of what I am, but who cares, and why bother?
I asked myself?
"What's the point? Is not some garbage beyond recycling?"
It's more entertaining reading his assault, day after day, upon what he thinks I am saying and what he fears I am all about.
I feel joy at the idea of him smiling every time he thinks he's landed a blow, when he still has no clue what my positions are.
He, like you, feel something negative in the air...something you cannot stomach, something that goes against your brainwashing, what you've been raised on, and that's all that matters.
Instead of trying to understand what is being said, you resort to the easy method of simply casting aspersion using the usual, trained defensiveness, you were given, and you now resort to at the first sign of something you cannot fathom....something threatening, and yet something you cannot ignore.

I would love it if imbeciles simply ignored me...but you don't.
Though you are beyond hope, beyond reason, fully engaged in the popular, the emotional, the self-serving, you still want to think of yourselves as Knights battling against Barbarians, and Saints fighting against evil.
If you ever dared to look closely you would find that you are the barbarians, and you are the disease, the miasma...you are inside afraid to look out.

Other than the usual defensiveness, you offer no alternative, besides the psychological projections which are easy.

I've explained why fear emerges first, in my world-view, many times before.
Do not search my "rants" you just settle for the usual explanations aiming at the messenger.
So, who cares, turd?
If you do not bother, then why do you think I will?

But I'm kind, so I'll give you a hint:
The reason why the emotion of fear is the first to emerge is because consciousness precedes self-consciousness, and the senses evolved to be outwardly focused.
The fight/flight automatic (re)action is an outcrop of this survival tactic, which is what fear is.
Later love evolved so as to facilitate cooperative, schooling, strategies, alter to evolve into heterosexual cooperative specialized behaviours.
Given that fear, the anxiety towards the unknown, which gave an advantage to the organism, love had to evolve inebriating methods, to placate this fight/flight (re)action.
It is also a sophisticated form of lust, ergo the connections Freud exposed.

This is why we consider love a kind of madness, an irrational state, a form of blindness.

See, retard, I begin from a pragmatic point of view. I ask:
"Why would emotions evolve? What purpose would they serve, and how?"

I do not start with the emotional position of:
"It feels good, it benefits me, mother said so and she gave me lots, and it suits me fine."

Other than that, please never change.
If you say something interesting I'll respond, if not...then please continue "destroying" what you think I am saying, and never focus on the ideas, but remain obsessed with the personality.

An entire forum going to shit, and you fucks never learn.

apaosha wrote:

Order is imposed as a result of an absence, a need. The act of imposing order is the filling of a void, the shaping of the apparent. Chaos is natural, Order is an imposition.

It is motivated by lack; all motivations originate from lack. One who lacks nothing has no motivations. Absolute power is indifference and is characterized by non-activity, inertness. Activity therefore, existence, is characterized by lack; a movement towards completion.

One is motivated to show affection to partners, friends and children.

There is no lack in this scenario, but an abundance of care.

apaosha wrote:

In this context, love becomes the numbing agent which counteracts, as Satyr has said before, the fight or flight mechanisms of both parties which evolved before and must be counteracted in order for the 2 organisms to co-operate.

This assumes one is afraid of reality and therefore needs something to overcome it.

We're not all living in fear, like Satyr, therefore, we don't need a cure. We embrace love on our own terms, for it's desired affects on our life. Not as a desperate scramble to dull the pain of being coward, like Satyr.

--------

Satyr,

You again have not justified anything. You cast the stone at me that I 'copied' you, so I returned the stone to you.

I quoted the change of your position, which you conveniently ignored. I can illustrate that anything I've said, I've arrived at in isolation of you, so feel free to address what I've stole from you.

The rest of your post is bullshit.

I feel sorry for the sheep that follow you. Especially your child

Dear retard.
No change in my position. Those who understood my positions, from the start, will attest to the fact that I have not changed them, because nobody has offered me a rational reason to do so.
All I receive are emotionally based defensive assaults, which are fun but tiresome, because they use the same methods in exactly the same way.
So much for individuality.  

Dear, retard, my positions on how and why emotions evolve and why fear, anxiety towards the unknown, must be the first to offer an advantage, stands.

My position as to how and why love evolved, to facilitate the alter to evolve cooperative, and heterosexual survival strategies and how love is an adaptation of lust, which is, in turn, rooted in the more primal feeding need, still stands.

I would feel more sorry for a bunch of imbeciles who will live and die without a clue.

As for the "below the belt" mentioning of my child, I thank you for your concern, but trust me, he will be something an imbecile, like you, will never know.

I rescue a hopeless case and offer him a utility.
This turd's utility will be as a specimen, an example of modern nihilism.
The self-hatred, cowardice, and world denouncing horror before reality.
I give you the last man, as Nietzsche would say...the symptom of western man's decline.    

Here we have another example of my positions as these have been posted on-line and in the essays I've produced and uploaded, from time to time.
Notice that nothing on-topic is offered, and no counter-argument is provided, as to how and why emotions evolve...what purpose they serve.
This is typical of the hive-mind, the modern mind, which this latest turd is but the latest representative to dare come here.

In the past when I asked for an alternative explanation as to how and why different types arise, in the human population, or how speciation is produced, I received the same assaults using the usual "racist", "hater", and so on.
No explanation as to how and why intelligence arises and why it is uniformly distributed, according to these morons, if it is supposed to offer a survival advantage, making natural selection work.
Only the now repetitive evasiveness, using attacks on the person rather than the idea.

Notice that everything is attacked on a personal level, and feminine insinuations are used in place of masculine arguments.
Notice that there is no iota of substance in the posts.
Nothing about the topic but about the person, full of those defensive insinuation and patronizing pity displays.
He offers us a real-life reinforcement for what has been described in theory.

I need not go to third party scripture for evidence, because these turds, congregating on ILP are my proof.

Joe Schmoe wrote:

One is motivated to show affection to partners, friends and children.

There is no lack in this scenario, but an abundance of care.

You are a mindless fucktard.

One is motivated due to lack. Co-operative social systems and the evolved emotions that bring them about stem from the weakness of an individual and his need to associate himself with a group; mutualization of self-interest.

To reiterate: motivation stems from lack. One who lacks nothing cannot be motivated as he has no need to fulfill.

If you are claiming that a motivation can exist which does not stem from a lack, a pressure, a need - then you will demonstrate it.

The main point here however is that you're understanding of this subject is limited to the negative connotation that the word "lack" implies. It makes you suspicious because it suggests you are flawed. And because you are ever a woman and want to be flattered and wooed (like your girlfriend who was here recently) you yourself must always be interpreted in a positive light.

Therefore an action motivated by lack becomes reversed: an action motivated by abundance. You've said nothing, but you have inverted the positive/negative spectrum and flattered yourself.

Well done, girl.

Quote :

apaosha wrote:

In this context, love becomes the numbing agent which counteracts, as Satyr has said before, the fight or flight mechanisms of both parties which evolved before and must be counteracted in order for the 2 organisms to co-operate.

This assumes one is afraid of reality and therefore needs something to overcome it.

You are afraid of reality... and this christian nonsense is your way of deflecting that fear and turning away from it.

To reiterate: fear occurs first, therefore in order to facilitate reproduction an organism must employ a mechanism to counteract this pre-existing emotion.
You have said nothing about this point, ie why or how love precedes fear and instead have confined yourself to casting aspersions at another's character.

And the point here is that you're not really participating in this discussion rationally. Your entire view and argumentative contribution is emotional and derived from emotional valuations. Love or fear or cowardice, need or lack or abundance.

What is true for you is what feels good. Truth is pleasure, that is the extent of your decadence and intellectual collapse.

You are a coward, a weakling and an idiot.

Quote :

We're not all living in fear, like Satyr, therefore, we don't need a cure. We embrace love on our own terms, for it's desired affects on our life. Not as a desperate scramble to dull the pain of being coward, like Satyr.

Turning of the tables.

In this instance, a man becomes a "coward" because he confronts reality as it is and recognizes fear as a primary motivator.... whereas you, who are terrified by reality and subsist under delusions to cope, are "brave" and I suppose "loving".

As if reality depends on our acceptance of it. As if a man is brave if he is blind or cowardly if his eyes are open.
Mainly: as if you have a choice what you are motivated by. As if reality can be overturned simply by reinventing our interpretation of it - an interpretation which both flatters us and conceals our flaws, many and fundamental as they are.

It's absurd. You're absurd, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This is demonstrative of how nihilism dissociates the meanings of words from their referent and simply uses them in a game of feel-good emoting in whatever manner provides the best emotional reward, leading to meaningless barking noises where one expects speech.
A reversal has occurred here in the mind of this animal: bravery has been redefined to mean a selective interpretation of reality. Bravery now means to turn away from what confronts us and shames us, belittles us and exposes us.

Bravery, in other words, is cowardice.

And because of that, all such concepts become meaningless, as they have been divorced from reality and selectively reinterpreted to suit emotional needs.

Delude Thyself.

Strength is a measurement of weakness.
Gnosis is a measurement of ignorance.

We begin with rudimentary forms of each, and build upon it, subsequently deteriorating back again.

Genes can transmit this strength, to whatever level it reaches, so as to preserve it. The inheritor rarely appreciates what he receives until he has lost a portion of it.
Memes can transmit this gnosis, to whatever level it reaches, so as to preserve it. The inheritor rarely appreciates what he receives until he has lost a portion of it.

This ebb and flow continues, just as chaos increases, demanding increasingly higher levels of strength and gnosis to maintain and to then grow.
Growth is a product of excess energies. As these wane growth stalls and then decline begins.

Without getting into the metaphysics, my positions entail new beginning due to the increasing randomness.
As the entire process tends towards the near-absolute, space being possibility, the possibility of a near-absolute order becomes inevitable.

All emotions evolve to facilitate survival ...self-maintenance.
Everything in excess is harmful.
Therefore, whether it is fear or love, surrendering to the emotion leads to a negative outcome.

The emotion, being an evolution of sensation, is the nexus between mind/body processes...or how the neurological structure communicates with the automatic physical processes - the organs, digestion, metabolism, cellular activity etc.
The senses are a part of this neurological structure, as the sen organs transmit data via this system to the central hub, the brain, where they are processed.

This combination of external and internal stimulation, data, via the nervous system, produces emotional (re)actions.
They are the most primitive form of judgment, before the brain evolves to the point where it can attempt to gain control over these automatic responses.

Fear, despite the common consensus is a positive emotion, as it facilitates survival and produces care/respect/attention/engagement.
Without fear there is no respect, and no self-respect...no discipline.
The brain remains on the level of an infant, comfortable under its parent's care. The parent takes on the responsibility of caring, of fearing, of remaining aware, vigilant, cautious ... allowing the infant to explore the world, as a preliminary step towards brain growth/development, before it is forced to self-discipline ...before it is weaned and takes on this responsibility for itself.

In sheltering systems this is never finalized. the brain remains under the supervision of the institution, the state, which takes on this caring, cautionary, vigilant, role.
The reason for this is obvious. Nothing benevolent about it. A childish mind is easier to manipulate, to control, to discipline.
A population of infantile psychologies, that never sense fear, or have little experience with it, remaining carefree, careless, naive, is easier to manipulate with small doses of fear.
Their inexperience with it makes them unable to cope with any degree exceeding the level they are accustomed to.

We see this in the U.S. and how fear is used to create a social effect, such as appeasement, docility, war mongering, alienation, restlessness, continuous work/productivity, consumerism and so on.

Satyr,

I mention your son not because I'm trying to hurt you, but because I care for him, and actually relate myself to him.

My father didn't let my mother show any affection to me. He said love was weak and a man needs to be strong.

He wanted to turn me into a monster, which I began to see in myself in the way I was treating others. I showed true courage and strength, by rebelling against this man the only way I could.

My father exercised every single day. He'd been to jail for stabbing people. A single demonstration my father: One day, my mother was outside and a neighbor insulted her. That night, the neighbor was throwing a party with 30+ grown men. They were aboriginals who just so happened to be unemployed. When my father go home from work, my mother told him about how the neighbor treated her.

He put down his work shit, left the house, we heard commotion and he came back with bloody knuckles, unblemished. He was a fucking psycho, at least to my mind.

How does a teenager rebel against this? I starved myself, and made myself physically weak and vulnerable, to spite my father.

If your son is anything like you, (and I give you credit, you're a strong man, at least in intellectual capacity), and you try to perpetuate fear and suppression of natural processes, he will rebel against you.

It will hurt both of you.

Don't do that to your son, don't do that to yourself.

For the time being, I'm done. You can be a cunt and hide in your abstractions and empty justifications but I gave you MY truth.

Make it of you will, wise Satyr.

You are truly an imbecile.

Yes, in fact, moron, I make him afraid every chance I get.
He lives in terror.
Because that's what I am saying.
Exactly that.

Every day I give my son a good thrashing, for no reason...just to keep him alert, and wondering...you know afraid.

You fucks are truly retarded.
What projections of your own insecurities you display.
You take a word, connect it with the emotion it produces in you, and then you let your fantasy go wild with imagery and hypothetical scenarios trying to get a grip on what is being said.

What a pathetic idiot you are.

To show affection to your child, your wife, is a natural display of kinship...to appreciate your own, and what is yours, and of your own blood.

Imbecile...fear cut away from your urban, modern, domesticated settings, is a tool for survival.
A fox, has an interest in her cubs. they carry her genes.
She trains them to care, to be careful in an unpredictable world.

Then she lets them go to find their own way.

Moron...you are a coward.
Face it.
You hear fear and Nazi emblems spring into your tiny brain, decomposing bodies, a horror flick you saw as a boy, and wet yourself at night....

Imagine a fox raising her cubs to be careless, carefree, fearless in the forests of the wild.

How long will they survive, without a vigilant eye and a parental eye watching over it, fearing for it?

Who is first to pronounce himself without weakness, than the weakling.
Who is first to declare himself without fear, but the coward who is bound by it.
Who is first to claim that he is already free, but the slave who is blind to his shackles.
Who is the first to say he knows, beyond doubt, but the ignoramus.
Who is first to say he is a manly man, with nobody over him, but a boy still unsure about his manhood.
Who is first to say "My love has no conditions, it is free and open to all" but the miser who demands reciprocity as a matter of principle, or the whore, who has lost all self-respect, all fear of self, all caring for self, to the point where she is ready to give herself away for next to nothing.
Who is first to scream "Destroy it all, lay it all to waste!!" but the impoverished one with the least to lose.
Who is first to say "There is no self, we are all one" but the one who lacks an identity, and very little about him is worth preserving.

The coward having lived his life in a state of sheltering carelessness, bordering on cynicism, hears of fear, as a child listens to tales of the bogeyman, and trembles, not having much experience with it.
The word fear is enough to cause fear in him.

Already the syringe full of chemical love is being prepared to soften the stress and sing him a lullaby, about a world of eternal love, fearlessness, where peace reigns and milk and honey flows.


What a soft fall the baby experiences, as it let's go and sleeps the sleep of the brain-dead.
What has baby to fear with mother nearby?

Joe Schmoe wrote:

One is motivated to show affection to partners, friends and children.

There is no lack in this scenario, but an abundance of care.

What is socialization but making unknown into known, or forming allies; to ally.

To socialize is a causal drive and every causal drive involves attributing a cause to make something or draw something unknown as a relation to known. This reduction is rooted in primal fear of the unknown.

'To' socialize always occurs from need, from lack.

But socialization can have occured from an excess; an over-abundant spirit involved in its own creativity can have benefitted another unintentionally owing to which the beneficiaries cluster around that spirit socially.

In the Dionysian perspective, life is an excess; self-preservation is only secondary to the more primal drive of self-assertion. Yet the discharge of strength, discharge of this excess self itself involves a Fear of being overwhelmed and collapsing under the weight of one's own excess. The joy of asserting one's self is a sublimation of avoiding self-auto-collapse. A holding together of a unified self at the highest tension and brink of collapse; joy is because one manages to self-assert out from this Fear announcing 'I want to flourish', instead of succumbing to disparate pieces inside...

Lyssa,

You appear wiser than Satyr, or at least, calmer is disposition, therefore, more understanding.

Fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm.

Lyssa wrote:

To socialize is a causal drive and every causal drive involves attributing a cause to make something or draw something unknown as a relation to known. This reduction is rooted in primal fear of the unknown.

And what of invention and creation?

We can form alliances to produce and raise ourselves into a higher standard of efficiency or effectiveness in some regard.

For example, forming an alliance to build a bridge across a river. This isn't fear of there not being a bridge, it's to produce a more efficient method of travel, thereby, freeing one's time to dedicate to endeavors one values more.

A bridge not existing does not pose danger, pain or harm, therefore, it creation isn't motivated by fear.

Lyssa wrote:

But socialization can have occured from an excess; an over-abundant spirit involved in its own creativity can have benefitted another unintentionally owing to which the beneficiaries cluster around that spirit socially.

Yes.

Lyssa wrote:

Yet the discharge of strength, discharge of this excess self itself involves a Fear of being overwhelmed and collapsing under the weight of one's own excess.

When one feels this abundance, one isn't afraid of collapsing. One is at tension, in the present, and their will is to relieve the tension. Not because in the future they might snap, but because the present is uncomfortable.

This tension is release in a wife array of forms.

Quote :

The joy of asserting one's self is a sublimation of avoiding self-auto-collapse.

Yes, I can agree with this.

Lyssa wrote:

A holding together of a unified self at the highest tension and brink of collapse; joy is because one manages to self-assert out from this Fear announcing 'I want to flourish', instead of succumbing to disparate pieces inside...

Allow me to quote something I recently said to Primal Rage:

Joe Schmoe wrote:

Ploy - An action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously

Survival wasn't intended. There was no conscious being who said, we'll give these animals love, then they'll survive effectively.

Survival is neutral. Some species died, others perpetuated. Neither circumstance, objectively, is wrong. Right and wrong are discerned by intent, and since the Universe and environment is what enforced our structure, natural selection, there was no objective being set.

Beyond the living, all is neutral. A sun has no interest in perpetuation, or dying. Both eventuations are irrelevant to the sun. Just as survival or extinction of our species, is irrelevant to the Universe or environment.

The only thing that motivates us is our own personal bias, that was enforced into us, because had we not developed these biases, we'd have died like the rest. To say love ought be dismissed as a ploy, is to say all your motivations ought be dismissed as a ploy.

Everything you do is a product of what's been perpetuated by the past. We're all drones.

The best environment for us, is one where our drives are satisfied.

Love didn't arise to conquer fear. They both arose independently and aided our survival. Neither came first and is the true emotion. They're on equal footing.

Trying to originate every affect of love to fear is silly. Fear is equally as shallow as love.

The only reason Satyr wants to assert fear came first and is true, is because he's a coward living in fear and tries to assert everyone's a coward to lessen his own shame.

Don't buy into it.

Also, for good measure:

Eternal Savagery (Primal Rage) wrote:

Love, from a biological perspective, is a ploy - a numbing agent to relieve the stress within an organism.

Love is an emotion that inspires one to embrace, protect and perpetuate the things that you direct this emotion towards.

As I said to Satyr, if one is seeking to be numbed, it's because on is already in pain. If one does not live in fear, as there are many out there who do not, they don't need to be numbed. Yet they still embrace love, why?

Because it's not simply a numbing agent.

Let me repeat what I said to you in the Power thread:

Love motivates one to preserve what one attributes love to, it also motivates one to adjust and grow in order to maximize the relationship between self and the loved.

Also, as referred to at KT, one may love a process such as being creative and inventing. One's love motivates one to produce or aid in the production of technologies and systems that raise the living standards and well being of all around them.

Love promotes reproduction. It not only encourages the reproduction, but the raising of one's offspring. The will to let one's children stand on one's shoulders, to reach higher than the self could. To give them more.

These are a few examples of what love does. If you remove fear from the equation, there's still no motivation for these actions, therefore, love serves an independent purpose other than to overcome the affects of fear.

Joe, we live in a Darwinian world. Nature only cares about survival - resisting entropy for as long as she can. Love is a tool utilized in this resistance. This is not a divine world where love is some transcendent reality - this is a natural world - a carnal world.