To not settle for "just because"....to be courageous enough to delve deeper than "I'm whacky spontaneous, like that" as if your actions were so complex and random (chaotic) that you could not be understood, since not even you can comprehend your own choices and actions.
Who are you talking about? Have I ever said, "just because"? Can you quote me some context? Let's have a look at some context, shall we...
...Oh wait. You deleted everything.
What is the point of what you say, if you would rather talk to a voice in your head, than recognize the reality of what the other person says. You're not disrespecting me when you let trash like that come out of your face, and say nothing to justify any of it...
I guess I could try to re-write the conversation, like the post of mine that you also deleted... but you wouldn't like that, I don't think.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
To not settle for "just because"....to be courageous enough to delve deeper than "I'm whacky spontaneous, like that" as if your actions were so complex and random (chaotic) that you could not be understood, since not even you can comprehend your own choices and actions.
Who are you talking about? Have I ever said, "just because"? Can you quote me some context? Let's have a look at some context, shall we...
...Oh wait. You deleted everything.
What is the point of what you say, if you would rather talk to a voice in your head, than recognize the reality of what the other person says. You're not disrespecting me when you let trash like that come out of your face, and say nothing to justify any of it...
I guess I could try to re-write the conversation, like the post of mine that you also deleted... but you wouldn't like that, I don't think.
Are you responding to me? What are you saying? Where did I say existence is just suffering? Who are you responding to, the voices in your head? Reread what I've written, please, and if you are interested and you understand give me a reply on what I've written, not on what you think I've written.
Again: Existence is not "just suffering"? Who said this?
Existence is interactivity...not sensation, necessarily. Sensation emerges within existence. Activity does not feel itself acting....it is unconscious. The sensation of it is need, suffering is need left unsatisfied. This requires a brain.
Pleasure is a symptom of strength, superfluity. No consciousness no need. No experience with the effects of change, chaos, upon life, which is ordering.
Why do you not read?
Let me play your mind-games, little boy. This will be fun. Why? Why? Why? Just because.
Lucky, for you, I did erase it, no? I love challenges...making the simple harder on me.
It gives you a fresh start to wow us with your thinking.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I've offered a concise, in my opinion, well-thought out proposition, theory, explaining the human condition. If all you have to offer is a "no its not" or "you are wrong" or "existence is not just suffering" or "just because" or "beauty is spontaneous"...or "I disagree" or something like this monosyllabic declarative statement, with no argument, then why would you expect something more than me repeating my positions...which all contain definitions of words, arguments as to why I think this or that....and, when possible, evidence from a shared experience with reality to support them?
Telling me you disagree or that shit just happens, or that you did not mean it that way....or using a misunderstanding to respond and then defensively accusing me of misunderstanding, will get you nowhere.
Maybe I'm weird, but when someone says "just because" and then claims that he meant "the past" then this mind is either a hypocrite or retarded. And when one uses the term "spontaneous" to contradict a position that uses nature as its basis, and then claims that that is what she meant, all along, having never explained why, according to her, this spontaneity occurs, then she is either a phony or a moron...or both. If spontaneous means determined in the past, by nature...then it is not free. It is contingent and one can also make the argument that it is self-interested.
When one says "for its sake" and nothing else, then why not "only for the sake of ugliness"? This method can be used to defend any proposition.... It's easy. Why not only for the sake of weakness, ignorance, stupidity? If man has no interest invested in his appreciation - appreciation alluding to value for him - then why naturally select at all?
Nothing in nature, in life, emerges for superfluous reasons. Nature is stringent, economical...man constructs the superfluous with his interventions. What is in excess results in atrophy. Is this good or bad? Neither, from an objective position...but from a subjective one, where an ideal is the motive, the goal, it can be either good or bad, to a degree.
Beauty only matters for man. Not existence. Man is conscious of beauty, cares for it...cares about it. Because of what man is...not just because. His appreciation of a phenomenon, in this case symmetry, order, health, is the product of his nature.
It is a manifestation of existence, as an order, symmetry....but it is not moral...it isn't good or bad. In relation to human needs it becomes attractive, seductive, it becomes good, preferred, wanted, desired....projected as a goal, idealized, or simply enjoyed as an experience, to be stored in memory, or replicated, or emulated, or passed on.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Are you responding to me? What are you saying? Where did I say existence is just suffering?
"Existence = suffering." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
But it's also implicit whenever you say, "The experience of existence is suffering", and when you reduce other experiences, like pleasure, down to just a quantification of suffering, a degree of its absence.
"Ergo need, suffering, is the experience of ordering, of living." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"Need/Suffering, is the sensation of existence." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"No experience with need/suffering, means no contact with the organism's own essence, as a non-absolute, striving towards an object/objective." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"Pleasure is the negation of the sensation of existing – which is need/suffering." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"From this first proposition, it is easy to conclude that life is, in fact, a constant striving and suffering caused by this pushing back of forces that seek to return to pre-existing circumstances." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[quote="Satyr"I did...just because.
You and I both remember, no?
But the context will be exposed as we go along. Again and again.
I like that voyage of discovery...even if it is a rediscovery.
Have you seen a cat play with a mouse when it is full? One need gives way to an other.[/quote]
Are you hoping that reality is different this time? Do you delete because you don't like looking at what it was?
If I attribute something to you, and you say, "that's not what I said"... then I'll justify why I attribute it to you. That doesn't mean that I can't be wrong... it just means that I'm not wrong for no reason, and that I'm willing to show where my possible misunderstanding occurred, and that I'm willing to justify what I say, even if what I have said was in error. When you attribute something to me, and I say, "that's not what I said"----you do nothing. That's cowardice. You want people to accept what you say, "just because"----like a hypocrite.
Satyr wants people to agree with him? Are you sure about that?
This just proves how obtuse you are, Moooooo. Unless I'm mistaken, people don't come here "to agree". People come here to disagree, to challenge, to learn. But "learning" isn't part of your vocabulary. It's not a word you're familiar with.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Lyssa wrote:Quote :No, not really. The only time that consciousness, (in any degree), exposes suffering, is when it is a consciousness of suffering. There are other sensations than just that of suffering, in existence. And consciousness of those things, just as with suffering, can come in degrees of greater or lesser.
Does your body stop needing when you are asleep and your consciousness isn't awake?
Sleep on it, and think.
What does that have to do with what I said? Why don't you read what I said, and actually respond to it.
You said the only time consciousness in any degree exposes suffering is when it is a consciousness of suffering.
I said whether you are conscious of it or not, there is no cessation of need in your being when you are asleep. Some would say sleep itself is a consciousness of some degree, of this attrition.
Quote :
Do you think that every sensation is just a different quantification of suffering? Are you that numb?
No, that's not what I said. But life is Rooted in suffering. The will to maximum self-organization, to be the most effective, economic unit demands greater and greater resistances to prop itself against and raise itself.
Quote :
I did not say that suffering doesn't exist, I said that existence is not just suffering.
What is existence?
I am not talking of day to day life, where your consciousness preserves you from going insane by hiding all the subliminal wars.
I am referring to the nature of existence, which always only involves two things no matter whichever way you look at it. 1. Strong will appropriates the weaker one and accumulates its force as a resource to its own end because it suffers to maintain its energy for further domination. 2. Weak will is unable to counter a more dominant force and gets absorbed and loses its congruence, its sense of unity and this entails suffering.
Existence is the effort to economically organize itself into a seeming semblance of a Unit, a core, a sense of self that is able to withstand enough to stabilize itself into an identity, an ego... in the face of entropy, while itself being a very part of that entropy, since man too is a piece of nature in the end. Existence is that separation, that nature cutting itself apart and maintaining its integrity with a porous border we calls self in its innate urge to flourish, expand, dominate, etc.
Hope that answers.
Quote :
Quote :And in suggesting that, aren't you drawing a non-sense yourself - "all language must work this way" - consequently applies to nothing meaningfully too, no? Obviously not. I can say, "Everything in this basket is an orange".... that's not open to the same objection as "God is everywhere", or "Everything is suffering", is it? In one case, my language is restricted to a domain, in the other, it isn't.
HA, "domain" - now you repeat what I said about "Frame".
You repeat back to me what I told you! The two frames are diff. because like I said, one of them deals with the nature of Life itself.
Its not a language problem, but the frame. Its not "this is not how language works",,, but its "this is not how philosophy works".
Quote :
Quote :The finest Philosophy is about positing something that applies to everything;
No, that's absolutist thinking.
No; absolutist thinking is the saying Philosophy is about positing something ought to apply to everything.
Quote :
Quote :you have discovered or posited a concept that weathers time, able to hold ground, and something is able to hold ground when it manages to apply to everything."Weather's time"? If you want timelessness and unchangingness----then join a religion. Your requirement is a religious one.
You sound foolish; maybe the definition of a genius will sparkle from your face.
Quote :
Quote :The spirit of gravity refers to the nihilism and self-ressentiment in being unable to will in the face of meaninglessness. Ressentiment pulls it down, unable to rise.
The spirit of gravity refers to someone who thinks life is a burden to be born, and preaches that... which is what reducing every conscious awareness down to a degree of "suffering" implies. It does not just refer to someone who is unable to will----it refers to someone who wills heavy things.
That someone thinks life is a burden *because he is unable to will his own values; it is ressentiment that gets creative and as you say may will heavy things, as Schopenhauer did.
There is also a pessimism of strength that believes there is a wisdom in pain, that illnesses are necessary too, and says 'this' world of existence is useless, not the existence of the world itself, and so possesses that vigorous passion to revalue all values, create new values.
An affirmation of suffering need not be a depreciation of life.
I've used the word existence in two contexts. Existence, as a whole, is interactivity. Existence as in life, is the consciousness of this interactivity. An inanimate lifeless phenomenon feels nothing....a life form yes, it senses, interprets this fluidity as need/suffering. Consciousness is added on and develops in sophistication. A plant may only feel lack, need, but no pain, no suffering in the way a mammal does. It lacks the nervous system to feel on the level that a human can. It's sensations, if we can call them that, are primitive, rudimentary...
Lack....absence of an absolute. Need is the sensation of this lack.
Now tell me you disagree, cause you ate, and you feel full, and get lost.
I recall the "if races mix something wonderful will happen" angle. Just because. Reducing human judgment as nothing more than an innocent bystander, not an active participant. As if intelligence just emerged, by accident, with no selection, no judging, no appreciating guiding it. Human consciousness as voyeur...experiencing what may and never judging it as superior/inferior....
No, liar...you are projecting. Link me to where I say I want others to accept my views, just because. I want a challenge on-topic...not just because....not shit happens.
I repeat because minds like yours have nothing to offer on-topic.
God exists I disagree Let's agree to disagree.
That's the extent of your "philosophizing".
I'll adapt to you, my little boy. You lead.
Look at what you just did. You said nothing. You linked, alluded, referred, deferred...and then cast aspersions....and now you sit back, like the cowboy in the avatar, self-satisfied.
But your six-shooter is empty. All you have now is the clinking of your spurs, and the smoke, shadows, hiding your face.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Delicate line between heaven and earth… The calm of the ages, all the world’s worth. Such minuscule measure, while we think it so grand… Just five specks of smallness, This soft quiet land. So frail and so fleeting, in the end you will see Simple dreams were Horatio’s philosophy.
For all the truth, all creation, all secrets of yore Can be told in an instant, by then they’re no more.
Ah, The Unexplainable All worries unsettled, heartache unresolved… All questions unanswered, with death, shall be solved.
We already teeter, this sheer cliff so high. When we fall to corruption, insecurities die.
To end is to start; to surrender is to know.
Despair and depression, together they grow. Hope shall meet hopeless when there’s nowhere to go.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Maybe Mo should recall and recreate in brief the conversation that was deleted.
No point was made. At least not one you and I have not come across about a thousand times before.
He is using an absence as a tool for implying what he cannot deliver. Victim psychology. In his mind he made a brilliant point...but it was so brilliant he cannot repeat it. He was randomly hitting the keys, and something wonderful happened by accident. No reason behind it....no motive, no determining factor.
It just spontaneously occurred...he had no role in its emergence...it came about 'just because'.
Like intelligence in humans. Random fucking...and poof. Natural selection of the die roll.
I must be missing something. Who said anything about "random"? Was that a meaning implied somewhere, by someone, by the use of a word?
Is everything about you, Phonee?
How are they "free"? What does "free" mean to you? Give me a dictionary quote and underline the part that best describes your understanding of the word. How does it contradict my positions? What are my positions, do you know?
Describe how things emerge spontaneously....oooooorrrrrr....fuck off.
"Just Because"? Just because of what? Not just because - but be-cause.... Just is a finality. Singularity...just. Just so Just is
Spontaneous = a product of intrinsic motivation. Free = "as a child", not rooted in an imperative to act, for which the lack of action bears no consequence.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Spontaneous = a product of intrinsic motivation. Free = "as a child", not rooted in an imperative to act, for which the lack of action bears no consequence.
Name one act which is free. Is a child free, or simply unaware of its own motives, drives...is it not naive? Does not a child possess a lower degree of self-consciousnesses? Is not being aware of your motives, your actions, a freedom from them?
When you say "I am not acting" are you not in the midst of an acting? Name one action which is not the product of something preceding it. Name one static state. A non-dynamic state.
Is a choice to abstain not a choice? The act of stopping one's self from acting, is this not an act?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
You said the only time consciousness in any degree exposes suffering is when it is a consciousness of suffering.
Yes, that's right. Some sensations are not reducible to the absence of suffering (in any degree).
Quote :
I said whether you are conscious of it or not, there is no cessation of need in your being when you are asleep. Some would say sleep itself is a consciousness of some degree, of this attrition.
If the concept of 'need' has any meaning at all, there has to be some application for its antonyms. Language works by discrimination---opposing, distinguishing, contrasting. You don't understand a concept if you cannot say what it is not.
What do you contrast 'need' with, with regard either to the processes that occur in your body, or else the sensations you become aware of?
I gave you an example of something that I had desired, that was not also a need. Lettuce on my sandwich. Ordinary language. Granted, my examples are not as erudite as yours. Nevertheless, what did you think of it?
In other news, do you think that every sensation is just a different quantification of suffering? ---That's a question, for you---not a statement of what you think. I am asking you. For example, do you think that pleasure is just the absence of suffering? Or, do you think that the total absence of suffering is more like a numbness, and that pleasure is QUALITATIVELY different in kind?
Quote :
What is existence?
I'm flattered. I did not realize you thought that highly of me.
Quote :
I am referring to the nature of existence, which always only involves two things no matter whichever way you look at it. 1. Strong will appropriates the weaker one and accumulates its force as a resource to its own end because it suffers to maintain its energy for further domination. 2. Weak will is unable to counter a more dominant force and gets absorbed and loses its congruence, its sense of unity and this entails suffering.
Hardcore dualistic thinking. Nietzsche's ontology---if he had an ontology. A few points: 1. Make sure you don't accuse me of dualistic thinking, in the future. 2. The folk psychology term 'will' is perhaps not that helpful in science, for investigations into what exists. Though, I haven't spoken with many scientists about this---I just assume they're not down with anthropomorphizing the electron. 3. Don't take 1 & 2 as a criticism, necessarily.
Quote :
Its not a language problem, but the frame. Its not "this is not how language works",,, but its "this is not how philosophy works".
The problem is a misuse of language. You take a concept and apply it beyond the domain of worldly references to which it applies. It happens when you say, "Oneness is everywhere"... but it also happens if someone were to say, "Suffering is everywhere". (I'm not attributing that to you, I'm using it as an example).
Quote :
No; absolutist thinking is the saying Philosophy is about positing something ought to apply to everything.
No; absolutist thinking is about making a concept into an absolute---something that applies to everything. That happens in morality, but it also happens elsewhere.
Satyr wrote:
He is using an absence as a tool for implying what he cannot deliver.
I have not used absence for anything. I have not attributed something to you that I am refusing to justify, or to admit may be wrong. I am just pointing out that there is a total absence of any kind of justification for what you imply that I said. Justify the bullshit that comes out of your face, if you think it has anything to do with me.
He is using an absence as a tool for implying what he cannot deliver.
I have not used absence for anything. I have not attributed something to you that I am refusing to justify, or to admit may be wrong. I am just pointing out that there is a total absence of any kind of justification for what you imply that I said. Justify the bullshit that comes out of your face, if you think it has anything to do with me.
So, the only thing you have to say is that you've been misunderstood?
In your response to Lyssa you say:
Moooo wrote:
You said the only time consciousness in any degree exposes suffering is when it is a consciousness of suffering.
Suffering is an extreme of need. No need, no suffering. The organism is in constant need...since it is continuously self-healing, self-organizing, self-replicating, and dealing with external, to its self, phenomena and so on...
It is in need, constantly, even if it is unconscious of the process feeding those needs. It is never in a static state. To interact is to experience attrition. Every act produces friction.
I act, an ordering/becoming, in reaction to existence, which is fluid, tending towards chaos. I appreciate what benefits, accentuates, aids me in this process.
Dualism is a natural product of human thinking. Artistry is breaking out of its binary absolutes.
Since the fluid cannot be adequately represented by the static, art uses methods, allusions...it peaks through the side of its vision. It represents, symbolizes...
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing that an action or phenomena may arise from nowhere.
In fact, all the way down to the sub-atomic level, and as far as our knowledge goes, there is no such thing as random.
You'll notice that no such meaning is implied. Hopefully...
Randomness cannot be perceived...as the brain can only process patterns.
Quantum Physics exposes the random as the incomprehensible.
Case in point; Your absence of a reply, to the questions I posited, is not a non-reply....it IS a reply. It is not a non-act...it is an act. If nothing more than an act of self-repression, or avoidance, it is still an act that exposes your intent.
Now you change the focus, trying to place the burden back on me.... So be it. I accept.
Your opinions on beauty are nonsensical. Wishful thinking...naive. Allusions to the mystical which you will then deny.
Our appreciation of beauty is very self-serving.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
You said the only time consciousness in any degree exposes suffering is when it is a consciousness of suffering.
Yes, that's right. Some sensations are not reducible to the absence of suffering (in any degree).
In other news, do you think that every sensation is just a different quantification of suffering? ---That's a question, for you---not a statement of what you think. I am asking you. For example, do you think that pleasure is just the absence of suffering? Or, do you think that the total absence of suffering is more like a numbness, and that pleasure is QUALITATIVELY different in kind?
There is never a total absence of suffering. And no, pleasure is no numbness.
Quote :
"Thinking, feeling, willing in all living beings. What is a pleasure but: an excitation of the feeling power by an obstacle (even more strongly by rhythmic obstacles and resistances) - so it swells up. Thus all pleasure includes pain. - If the pleasure is to be very great, the pains must be very protracted and the tension of the bow tremendous. ...Pleasure is a kind of pain." [N., WTP, 490, 658]
If you find this kind of view that describes pleasure in terms of pain and suffering, redundant, then I'll wait till you can give me a better account of life and existence.
Quote :
If the concept of 'need' has any meaning at all, there has to be some application for its antonyms. Language works by discrimination---opposing, distinguishing, contrasting. You don't understand a concept if you cannot say what it is not.
What do you contrast 'need' with, with regard either to the processes that occur in your body, or else the sensations you become aware of?
I am saying the very processes that occur in the body is itself a need. A need to grow, expand, assert - innate feature to all life. Life is continuous self-differential power.
Quote :
Quote :
What is existence?
I'm flattered. I did not realize you thought that highly of me.
You have no idea,, I would leave behind my embroidered handkerchief with you...
I'll have you know I have poor genetics, a dire paucity of much needed ascorbic acid as the story goes...
I have scurvy. But, I'm curvy. Friends say I look good in tight-skirts that somehow go with my one faced honesty. cosplays are not for me. Diversity though manifests itself in my precious pastime being killing bugs, and not just the software kind. I love to smash them!!
I can cook, paint with ketchup, and my heart is a sucker for turning up to various afflicted charity events for queers with lots of tight hugs to give away.
I recite N. religiously, I am an incorrigible taphophiliac, and real adept at duct-taping. And if you have some nuance to spare yourself, you can imagine how those three fit in.
I'm also heartcore rom-antique and cannot live without seeing roses everyday...
If these are qualities that appeal to you and you may wish to assemble, Recognize the fact you are not to blow your nose into my hanky... if you are careful not to jeopardize, these nothing but the highest regards I have for you. I will hold you to justify what blows out of your face.
I can't promise I'll benefit you... but the coquette has to go. You will unconditionally acquiesce yourself to precious abstinence for a while.
can this poor quivering heart command that?
Do you agree? Mo.. ...lon... labe...
Quote :
Quote :
Its not a language problem, but the frame. Its not "this is not how language works",,, but its "this is not how philosophy works".
The problem is a misuse of language. You take a concept and apply it beyond the domain of worldly references to which it applies. It happens when you say, "Oneness is everywhere"... but it also happens if someone were to say, "Suffering is everywhere". (I'm not attributing that to you, I'm using it as an example).
The problem is in the flexbility of your thinking.
Question is, do you want your world simplified, or do you want your world enriched?
The revaluation of all values is also the revaluation of the language we think in.
The genealogy of morality and unearthing how many other kinds of moralities are possible require keener discrimination, sensitivity to language that degrees make possible. If the world is interconnected, there are no binary opposites; we think in degrees. This is precision, not over-simplification.
Degrees enrich your world... they make definitions sharper, more corresponding to the fluid reality, more honest, more realistic.
What you call conventional lang. usage was itself the result of a philosophical way of thinking about the world,,, not its cause. This is what N. speaks about in the Master/Slave inversion, and how good&bad became good&evil.
It is a way of thinking that first conceptualized/s lang. conventions, not the other way.
A good philosophy keeps its language conventional enough to correspond to a shared reality, and nuanced enough to prompt a freer-thinking, allowing us with its word-potential to raise the bar on how we / we can experience the world. Phil. is the art of practising a Logo-technics.
Quote :
Quote :
No; absolutist thinking is the saying Philosophy is about positing something ought to apply to everything.
No; absolutist thinking is about making a concept into an absolute---something that applies to everything. That happens in morality, but it also happens elsewhere.
No. I'll stand by what I said.
And might I remind you, there are no Facts, only interpretations of phenomena. Even saying the world is Nothing But the Will to Power that applies to you, me and all, acknowledges it is still, only as a Degree of interpretive power and so this acknowledgement of degree is the opposite of any absolutist thinking.
I don't feel a need to pin you down and force you to answer my questions.
Nietzsche wrote:
...Pleasure is a kind of pain." [N., WTP, 490, 658]
Some people will get a kind of pleasure (mental) from a kind of pain (physical), or vice versa. It happens with exercise and masochism. But if the thing you are referring to is one and then same, then no, I don't see how the pain in your back is not also a pleasure in your back).
I'm not sure what Nietzsche is referring to. Partly, I don't think he makes it much clearer than that both just have something to do with a discharge of power. ---A bit of a clumsy way of explaining how pleasures, and pains actually feel---phenomenologically.
Quote :
Question is, do you want your world simplified, or do you want your world enriched?
Enriched. That's why I reject any attempt to siphon manifold experiences down into degrees of just one (like, suffering).
Quote :
And might I remind you, there are no Facts, only interpretations of phenomena.
...And that to is an interpretation. And so much the better
Just curious: Isn't it your interpretation that some things are facts? (It certainly was for Nietzsche...)
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Pleasure is the sudden or gradual reduction of the sensation of need upon the organism. It is a reduction in degree, of the experience of change, upon a Becoming wanting to preserve self.
A metaphor: A river pushes against the swimmer, even if he is strong enough to resist the flow, and remain in place, or to advance contrary to the flow. The pressure is what produces the stress the mind translates as need.
The river never stops flowing. The swimmer never stops swimming ...agon.
Pleasure is the sudden or gradual reduction of the sensation of need upon the organism. It is a reduction in degree, of the experience of change, upon a Becoming wanting to preserve self.
That's all fine for a sandwich without lettuce. But I had no need for lettuce, and yet it gave me pleasure. Real pleasure. (Qualitatively different than the numbness that comes from a reduction of pain/suffering. Not just quantitatively different).
---Never-mind the actual experience of real beauty... your use is hopelessly inadequate even to describe the experience of lettuce on my sandwich, which, perhaps, is not that far from real beauty. But did you take yourself to be describing experience?
Question: Why does "Becoming" want to preserve itself? ---Isn't it... "becoming"?
To say Philosophy is only as good as a commonly agreed sematic network is to put morality before reality.
Philosophy is and should not be a Democritization of language.
To first agree a will mean b, and c will mean d, and then philosophize is a piece of moralism. Philosophy is about stating a will mean b and c will mean d; It is the science of determining values.
phoneutria: a will mean b
satyr: a means c? pfheh! name one thing that is c! you can't, you modern, you woman!
you cutie
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Question: Why does "Becoming" want to preserve itself? ---Isn't it... "becoming"?
Because it must in order to keep on becoming. How do you grow if you do not first consolidate the growth you've achieved? How do you climb a mountain if you do not first resist the gravity and maintain the height you've reached?
Lettuce in the brain... Is lettuce a vegetable?
A primitive sees a shiny trinket and is mesmerized, awed by its shiny perfection. He will sell his land to have more...appreciating it on its ability to hold his consciousness with its mysterious brilliance.
A Christian has a spiritual experience he cannot describe and no definition can do justice to. This is the truth of his intimate relationship with Jesus, that captivates his mind. He will deny that his "love" is self-serving. He "loves" God for His own sake.
The reptilian mind rejects the ineffectiveness of words to capture the sensations it feels coursing through its primitive neural networks. When it comes across the object of his desire, a piece of lettuce, it is flooded with endorphin joy...and is content to surrender to the sensations....for its own sake. Just because.
