Easy ideas, hard ideas

So, i had a little piece of realization recently.

"There is no truth" means you don't need to be constantly finding the truth about things. Instead, it is futile, so a person gives up. This idea is easy to have, because it requires next to nothing. Just a feeling of skeptical attitude.

"There is much truth" means we have a lot of work to do.

Nihilism has more than one flavor,
but it is an easy, useless idea.

Having a weak mind makes weak ideas more appealing.
A strong mind wants to do work, and can do work.
A weak mind cannot do much work, and dislikes work.

I believe this may be why iambigous posts the way he does.
His constitution is flabby and short sighted.

Eating psychological junk food weakens the mind.
Not using the mind also weakens it.

Wild ideas are interesting to me.
They are hard to control.
They are raw and strong.

So I figured that there is a relation between philosophical success and mental fitness.

Lambo is in a difficult position,
He complains about the insufferable anti-philosophy on ILP.
But he won't come post here (in the dungeon),
Although he is attracted to higher quality discourse.

Even those who cannot produce philosophy or philosophize,
Want to ingratiate themselves with those who can.

The weak are always attracted to the strong.

Dan~~ wrote:

So, i had a little piece of realization recently.

"There is no truth" means you don't need to be constantly finding the truth about things. Instead, it is futile, so a person gives up. This idea is easy to have, because it requires next to nothing. Just a feeling of skeptical attitude.

No.
It means "truth" - the word - refers to perspective (subjective); "perspective" refers to an interpretation; "interpretation" refers to reality, a.k.a., world, existence etc.; "world" refers to dynamic, interactions, i.e., flux.
So, truth is a static (abstraction, i.e., simplification/generalization, approximation etc., of a dynamic ever-changing reality.
this doesn't mean there is nothing known, only that the known refers to dynamic patterns which require constant revalidation, reaffirmation, and so consciousness is constant.

Dan~~ wrote:

"There is much truth" means we have a lot of work to do.

Yes....it means the concept of "truth" if used as an absolute - absurdity - requires to be nullified by an equally absurd absolute, producing a linguistic paradox in the mind, since in reality there is no such thing as an absolute: indivisible, immutable, whole, complete, singularity etc. Reality, existence, world, is fluid, fluctuating, dynamic, i.e., process.
We call this "change". Change is how the organic brain experiences - interprets - fluidity, i.e., flux: interactivity.  

Dan~~ wrote:

Nihilism has more than one flavor,
but it is an easy, useless idea.

It's use is psychological. It protects the ego from reality.
In this case, as I've noted, nihilism acts as a defence against man's emerging self-cosnciuosness, viz., man's ability to perceive himself, in the world, from a third person perspective.
This exposes man to sources of suffering no other earthly animal experiences. Man feels exposed, vulnerable, insecure...he realizes he can be known more than he can ever know himself. this is disconcerting and terrifying. Nihilism acts as a semiotic, i.e., linguistic, womb to conceal himself from others and from himself.

This insecurity is political, and can be manipulated/exploited for political reasons; for marketing, i.e., for control.
Nihilism can take any ideological/spiritual form because it is a defence, and defences can take any form.
So, we first encounter it as code through Mosaic laws....spiritual nihilism. This encoding of nihilism was a powerful innovation, since mankind is dominated by individuals who seek relief from existence. It was so seductive it had to be restricted to retain tis potency.
Christianity made it cosmopolitan, allowing all mankind - the world's downtrodden, desperate, ill, - to partake.
The mediocre masses cannot formulate a plausible ideological/dogmatic defence....so they need the priestly kind, to fabricate such narratives, mythologies.
The more creative priestly kind then become dominant over these uncreative mediocre masses by making themselves indispensable mediators between the mundane world - reality - and the non-existent divine world. They become mental surrogates fabricating linguistic defences which they then market to these who are incapable of such semiotic creativity.  

Dan~~ wrote:

Having a weak mind makes weak ideas more appealing.
A strong mind wants to do work, and can do work.
A weak mind cannot do much work, and dislikes work.

I believe this may be why iambigous posts the way he does.
His constitution is flabby and short sighted.

The uncreative adopt the nihilistic narratives they are given.
He is trapped in a cycle of repeating the narrative as he was taught it, unable and unwilling to break free because he is terrified by existence.
He is an old man who had been given a method of dealing with what he cannot deal with personally. He is the worst kind of hypocrite....he believes in his own lies.
Everything he says is in bad faith. He doesn't want to be released from his self-imposed conundrum, he wants to pull the world in with him, before he dies. No doubt, he believes he is helping mankind, doing his duty to help the world escape violence and suffering....because he is trapped in Abrahamic thinking. he west form Christianity to Marxism - not a big leap when you go form spiritual to secular nihilism - and now he's entrenched in postmodernism. He thinks this is his "maturation process" when he remains within the same psychologically retarding nihilistic paradigm.
There's no use getting involved in any dialogue with such creatures. Their motive is evasion.
He doesn't really want to "bring it down to earth" or give anything "context", all he wants is to reduce it in complexity, so that he can understand, and to make it emotional, personal, so that reason is subdued by emotional criteria.  

In the case of ecmandu we can both appreciate his shattered mind.
I didn't "break his mind" as you once accused me in regards to another, of the same sort. Existence broke him.
He now accuses existence of being flawed...and he will correct it, as any messiah would.
This is the by-product of Abrahamism infecting western man for over two thousand years.
Ecmandu is trapped in Abrahamic morality, and the concept of sin. His resentment has become guilt. The guilt of being born and living - killing other life to sustain his own. Brutal natural selection broke him. He feels ashamed of needing/desiring anything, projecting his insecurity as shame upon the world. He was denied what he wanted and so he feels ashamed of denying it to others.
He desired and did not get what he desired, because another took it. Resent of the other is assuaged by an accusation of guilt. The other took away from him what he wanted and he must be punished. This is concealed in self-shaming, and this story of experiencing multiple hells.....describes his path, through the years, of great misery.
He truly went through psychological hell before he reached the solution, heaven, of a compartmentalized, shattered, mind. Dividing existence into parts - described as "multiple realities" - was how he coped; what his mind had to do to survive.
Others turn to drugs.

A weak constitution manifests a weak mind, which is broken by its first contact with an indifferent uncertain, unforgiving reality.
Weak minds cannot be philosophers. They must seek refuge in ideologies and spiritualities that offer them a linguistic shelter from a world they cannot cope with.
Philosophy requires a masculine psychological constitution.     

Dan~~ wrote:

Eating psychological junk food weakens the mind.
Not using the mind also weakens it.

Yes...ergo KT does not tolerate psychotics, no more than ancient Greeks tolerated children and madmen in their symposiums.
Madmen, like children, dominate any social event they are allowed in, and toelrated, like ILP.
A system settles upon the lowest-common-denominator....and the lower that is the lower it settles.
Madmen and children, think this is them dominating, or about their charm or worth, because madmen, like children, have an undeveloped self-cosnciousness. They cannot differentiate between kinds of attention. For them all attention is a validation. In this they are more like women and children....ergo I call them men-children.

Dan~~ wrote:

Wild ideas are interesting to me.
They are hard to control.
They are raw and strong.

Radical ideas need to be limited by reality, otherwise they can fall into science-fiction, or spiritual occultism.

Dan~~ wrote:

]So I figured that there is a relation between philosophical success and mental fitness.

Mental fitness, like physical fitness, must offer a pragmatic advantage, relative to the objective, otherwise it is like bodybuilding, useless aesthetics, a show of potentials.
Philosophy is about words - semiotics - and how these words, referring to mental abstractions, i.e., concepts, ideas, ideals, relate to reality, i.e., the indifferent, uncertainty of a dynamic world.
Philosophy - love of wisdom - establishes objective and distinguishes which are feasible, realizable, from those that are unfeasible, unrealizable.

Knowledge = data, information.
Understanding = patterns in the data, information.
Wisdom = discrimination between the feasible/unfeasible, or what is attainable from what is unattainable - pragmatism.
Wisdom categorizes knowledge/understanding in accordance with the individual - know thyself - and his/her objectives/motives.

We tend to correlate strength with health but if balance is the key, then too much strength can be unhealthy.

Many on the Dissident Right, tend to worship powerlifters/strong men but the reality is most of those men either dont care about the collapse of their people around them or are actively/passively contributing to it.

Ive said this before about the "chad" meme, which despite many projecting their perfect ideal onto the "chad", the reality is the "chad" was always the hypermasculine manwhore who either produces no children or if he does, has the state raise them in his stead.

The several mental gymnastics that Christians can produce to justify their delusions can also be seen as "strong", despite the obvious problems with such a focus.

They despise what they consistently fail to live up to, and what reminds them of this failure.
They despise beauty in the same way they despise truth, so they must ridicule it by defining it beyond the feasible, so that nobody can ever live up to it, or by negating it altogether as if it never existed.
It's their petty little revenge on existence.

This is why I can't relate to the despair most people have about the current state of the FEAR-19 restrictions and thier lamenting about certain social activities they can't do or enjoy anymore as a consequence. There's nothing I need from or in society, other than provisions, everything else I give to myself.

Most cannot cope with solitude because it is an 'unnatural' condition to be in, requiring strong intellectual and mental stability and of course, the presence of an identity. Detached from others, there must be a fulfilling self to take solace in, otherwise solitude is impossible.

Could thriving alone be as simple as liking yourself?

As long as its a Nietzschean form of self-love, that is wholesome and joyous, and with a relationship with the natural world. Most are only capable of a shallow narcissistic form of self-love that they must get from others, ironically.

In this age of nihilism and hedonism, most are too excitable, agitated, or high-strung to tolerate being alone. They need distractions to escape from the frightening empty darkness inside themselves. It's easier to look at oneself in the mirror than in solitude.

Kvasir wrote:

As long as its a Nietzschean form of self-love, that is wholesome and joyous, and with a relationship with the natural world. Most are only capable of a shallow narcissistic form of self-love that they must get from others, ironically.

In this age of nihilism and hedonism, most are too excitable, agitated, or high-strung to tolerate being alone. They need distractions to escape from the frightening empty darkness inside themselves. It's easier to look at oneself in the mirror than in solitude.

Do you talk out loud to yourself?

Sometimes, why?

Kvasir wrote:

Sometimes, why?

I do too, a lot. My Mom also, in fact endlessly, but she adds all kinds of hilarious sound effects as well. I find that talking aloud enhances my organizations skills, my efficiency similar to a memory palace, and acts as free, self-reflective therapy. Science finds that people who have an above average intelligence talk aloud to themselves.

I wonder if people of average intelligence were taught to have dialogue out loud if it would benefit them in making better decisions and liking themselves.

Thinking isn't for everyone, and most are adverse to it. So the sound of thier own voices serves as another distraction. One they take great indulgence in.

Those who will and those are willed, as Nietzsche says as well, in regards to this subject. Power over oneself is the only tangible power one can have. Hope is the ideological projected placement of power into nothing, i.e will to nothingness. A coping mechanism as well, to remove the burden of responsibility.

Ideas = translations and reactions to sensual input, synthesized in the brain.
In organisms with no nervous system there are no ideas, only sensations triggering reactions, cascading across the body.
An image, for example, in a sophisticated brain, e.g., primates, felines, canines all mammals etc. is an interpretation - abstraction - of sensual input, triggering automatic reactions.
Ideas can be synthesized, combined, in sophisticated minds, like homo sapient brains, into amalgamations, e.g., unicorns, satyrs, centaurs, etc. or inverted to contradict the source of the sensations.

An image of a horse is an idea - noumenon.
An emotion is a noumenon.
A sensation is a noumenon.
Whatever is of the mind is a noumenon, a thought that may or may not correspond to a phenomenon, a presence, reality.
Humans can construct more abstract forms of through - ideas, ideals.
Ideologies.

Consciousness is not found in another other than life...so to assume that it is something that exists independent from life, ro that the universal is alive, is absurd.
A consequence of over two-thousand years of indoctrination that drives the mind to begin with a presumption and then attempt to assimilate experience into this presumption.

For example...a horse is an abstraction - noumenon - of an actual organism, constructed when light - medium - interacts with said organism - presence - and then with a sensory organ - eye.
The eye automatically interprets/translates the interactivity - stimuli- into neural pulses (neural codes) transmits them to the brain when these codes are translated into an image - representation.

But the human brain can go further. It can combine two, three, ten different representations, incorporating into them emotions, sensations, abstractions, to construct an idea which can only be externalized via logos - an ideology.
It can go further still and invert the idea - negate it, or convert it into its opposite.
None of which refers to anything outside the mind., and if iut could be miraculously become independent from mind it would negate reality as it is experienced.
For instance, if a unicorn could be miraculously made real it would negate natural selection that produced a horse; or if the one were to be made real it would negate the multiplicity of existence.