My bitch surrenders to me because her tastes coincide with mine. We embrace the nature of the other, by embracing it in ourselves.
The Christian wants to save the other from her nature, so that she can return to the ideal of denying her nature. The Christian cowers in the forest awaiting the shepherd to come and save it from a world that made it possible. It calls this freedom, when it is a rejection of self. It calls its barnyard existence liberty, and the roles it is given to play as a right, it calls its identity; it is milked and pretends it does so of its own volition. It's conscience is unburdened because its mind never goes beyond the barnyard fences, challenging the farmer's yolk.
Does Satyr have a soul, or just a spirit, a Daemon? Whatever Satyr has it suffices to convince the spirit, without offering salvation to a soul. Satyr gave up christian hypocrisy, pretending to care about others when self was all that matters to those who then deny self its expression and its existence.
Is Satyr empathic? How can he not be if he is to understand otherness? Does this empathy automatically result in sympathy? No. Only a Christian idiot thinks that empathy is an automatic compassion. Empathy could just as much result in antipathy, as the part of the self the mind wishes to overcome and to control.
Satyr's tastes are rooted in his nature, but they are not free from his will. He has scruples because he understands this control. He is burdened pragmatically, not morally. Morality is part of the pragmatic world he is forced to take into consideration when expressing his tastes. Morality is part of the environment, which pretends to care.
Satyr knows that those claiming to have an unburdened conscience are the most self-repressed, or the dullest of all, because he who denies is dominated by that which he denies, or he simply has no lucid connection with it. Satyr has learned in his life, that the most "humble" are the most arrogant, and the most well-meaning are the most vile, and those pretending to be honest, or those claiming to value honesty, are the biggest liars and the most disgusting hypocrites - the self-hypocrites = to buy into the bullshit you made up, or you accepted without understanding.
Satyr's tastes are a product of his nature, of his spirit, his soul. They need not be moral, or socially acceptable, or good, or bad. They are only so in relation to their potential outcomes.
If he represses the expression of his tastes it is because of pragmatic reasons, because Satyr can think beyond the immediate satisfaction of needs, and prepare for a longer satisfaction of need, which he calls contentment; he represses his gratification in the now, so as to preserve and ensure the long-term gratification of the same need, or the gratification of a need in the later he places above the need he is asked to gratify in the now. For example, Satyr denies himself one need, an animalistic one, so that he may enjoy his need for freedom, or to feed a more human need, an intellectual one.
Satyr is "only a man" but to Satyr and to his bitch, this is not an insult, because although only a man, he is not just any man, and his bitch knows it. This would make Satyr's bitch not just any bitch; his whore not just any whore.
The self-hater uses the word "man" and "woman" in a condescending way, because for them the idea of man and woman is what matters, not the reality of the sexual types.
It's interesting that those who once professed to be unburdened by scruples now present themselves as the ones casting their words around with integrity, and with a conscience; they care but do not, at the same time, and then they wonder why they are so cynical, and cannot trust themselves enough to surrender when every molecule in them wants to. They are interested in the welfare of another, but in their secret mind they feel superior to the one they call their equal.
Some are cynical because they know others, through self. Some are cynical because they know self, through others.
Why was Socrates sentenced to death? Because he spread his mind to minds that could never relate, and to minds that would pick and choose elements in his description to apply to their depraves tastes. Having realized his mistake, Socrates a wise sage, preached surrender to the city-state, so as to ensure the future philosophers, and artists, the necessary conditions to develop unhindered by the tastes of the manimals. He preached a singular God, understanding that the coming age would demand a stronger authority to control the multiplicity of manimals a city-state needs to function and to dominate other city-states.
A man feels proud of his bitch, and her quality. That she surrenders to him and not another, is proof enough of their shared tastes. She proclaims his value with her surrender to him - the higher her quality the higher the pride felt in her submission. He knows that his bitch is his own, and that she gives herself to him and nobody else.
He knows that his bitch heels to him, as other bitches heal to the system, to the abstraction, the idea of liberty, to morality, to modernity, which is a freedom from themselves, guaranteed and maintained by the very ones they submit to, offering the pretense of defining themselves in ways that only make sense within the premises they are bound by. Such a bitch gives herself to the institution that then gives them the "right" to pretend this or that. An institutionalized bitch satisfies herself with the company of men-children, she then feels above, mentoring them to appreciate her common whorishness, and her bitchiness...because we cannot even call a female "bossy" these days - it's not in good taste.
My bitch surrenders to me, with no pretenses, and with total trust that my tastes will not cause her a pain she cannot bear. It's funny...some bitches heel because of need, because of money, because of fantasy, because of promise, because of immediate gratification...because of convenience. My bitch heels to me because of my mind. Her quality honors me.
Is my bitch worthy of me, or am I worthy of my bitch? Ask my bitch.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Mon May 26, 2014 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37280 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You see, ladies and gentlemen, an institutionalized whore, a systemic bitch, has given herself to an idea(l), and an idea(l) is always superior to the real - reality can never match fantasy. And so a man if not THE MAN, is "only a man", or "just a man".
An institutionalized whore, works for her pimps, and they, in turn, protect her rights, to be as big of a whore as possible - she can be a communal whore, a common woman, a bitch of astronomical proportions, intimidating "just men" with her "strength and independence" - the Greeks called a prostitute κονη, common, shared. Her conscience is unburdened because she has doctors and pills, and pimps making sure that no matter how big of a whore she becomes, or what an astronomical bitch she is, she will never face the consequences, if she pays her pimps and remains true to The Man, rather than just any man.
Within the whorehouse a common whore thinks of herself as equal to all other whores, including man-whores if she produces for the pimp - they, like her, are shared, common, their tastes cultivated within the confines of that whorehouse. She sucks cock, but has acquired a taste for it...as any cock will do, because it is "just another cock". The common cock is just a cock, when she is impaled by the COCK, of THE MAN. What's sperm if the idea, the mimetic spermatozoa, is already gestating in her mind's womb?
Her conscience, being cultivated within the whorehouse, surrounded by male and female common whores, is never troubled. She fucks whomever she wants, just as long as she pays her pimp his cut. The pimp, in turn, guarantees a roof, and a bed, and food, and makes sure she isn't abused by "just any man". She feels superior to the 'johns' that now flock at her door, and she dreams of teaching them a higher kind of love, while her pimp stands at the ready outside her bedroom door. She can charge a high price for spreading her legs "freely" to whomever she chooses, but that she must, or not, spread her legs is not an option to this whore.
The institution owns her, and so it protects her from men, or "just men". She, in time, cannot surrender to "just a man" because the idea(l) man, THE MAN is her master, and she his common whore. Her love is a communal love. Her tastes common tastes.
After all, did not the common bitch come here to test the quality of "just a man" knowing that in her cynical idealism no man can ever meet the standards in her tasteful mind's fantasies? Did not the common bitch not come here already knowing no man could ever match the idea(l) man? Did she not secretly feel a curiosity as to why and how, just a man can inspire such surrender, when she only gives herself to the idea(l), and never the real?
You see, ladies and gentlemen, an institutionalized whore, a systemic bitch, has given herself to an idea(l), and an idea(l) is always superior to the real - reality can never match fantasy. And so a man if not THE MAN, is "only a man", or "just a man".
Who is the one searching for a noble hunter? Who is the one with an idol? Me?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37280 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
My bitch, is my whore...not a common bitch and whore. She feels no shame in being my bitch and my private whore, because she is mine and mine alone.
The common whore, thinks she is uncommon, that she belongs to nobody, and yet she does. She has given herself to the Ideal man, not to "just a man", and so her pleasures never burden her conscience, because her Ideal man is the every-man, and the no-man.
Maybe phono is in her private time playing Robinson Crusoe in the wilderness. Maybe... But in the end, what we do, how we spend a significant part of our day, the skills we acquire during that time, the thoughts we are thinking, all that shapes our innate potential.
And in that spirit, if she uses words on a regular basis then she will get better and better at how to wield them effectively. The knowledge how to use words offensively to manipulate and perhaps also improve her defensive capabilities, in not being affected by somebody else's words.
Wanting to get back into the jungle would suggest to me that phono has a very structured and ordered daily life.
I agree that what you do influence you, but only over the frame of what you are.
If you know a baker, do you know all bakers? If you know an artist, do you know all artists? Is redictivist constant use of my current profession an argument against my thought a valid argument against me, or an attempt to bundle me up with all others of the same trade, a personal attack.... worse, an impersonal, personal attack? His ad hominem isn't even toward me, it is toward programmers. That is the definition of bad faith. Can you fault me from brushing it off as a nothing?
I don't think it's about your profession, being a senior software engineer, an experienced programmer. It's more about your daily life experiences which you share with a lot of women with an office type kind of job. Living in a jungle without being the wife of an abstracted ideal and the mistress of a man who you deem inferior would be quite different.
I think you romanticize the jungle because you'd like to be the mistress of a man who you can look up to. But at the same time you'd think of yourself as some kind of amazon. Having your cake and eating it too. Mimetic conditioning of feminism, which deems women who submit to a man as despicable and weak, is being in conflict with the innate, bodily desires of finding a mate to look up to.
Think about this for a precious moment - If it would be thought of as noble, desirable, respected when a woman submits to her mate, by society at large and that particular male mate as well; Would that not harmonize your body with your mind?
Though, things have been moving in the opposite direction for quite some time.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
In the meantime urban jungles rise up and encroach upon the forests that have been so removed from our reality that we begin to romanticize them by using what we do know: our urban jungles.
But, I being "just a man" could never live-up to that Tarzan ideal man, fantasized by young girls and boys when walking in the park, vacationing in the equatorial zones, or dreaming in their city dwellings, on top of high rises, which they imagine being treehouses. Being a "professional" is the urban jungle's version of Tarzan. He survives in the forest, dominating apes, nut feels so utterly alone.
Is he a sovereign hunter?
In this urban jungle new creatures are born and live... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
And the average dreams of the exceptional while supporting the ideas that produce uniformity. and how is she to be amazed when she is not amazing, and where will she find that extraordinary when she would not bear it if she did? If she is equal, how would she be amazed by herself through another?
The jungle is full of the unexpected, and being surprised in what the urban mind craves, because in the urban jungles all appears ordered, polite, predictable, but sometimes strangeness underlies the well-groomed attitudes.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37280 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
They have judged me unworthy of one such as you. Seeing themselves in you, they are insulted by your surrender, and they want to pull you free from my inferiority.
You, such a mind, sitting at the feet of a brute, demeans them, and it insults their aesthetics. They came sniffing for retribution, for a return to the balances they idealize - curious as to why....why does one such as you give yourself to one such as I?
Seriously, what's more rational and calculating than to trust nobody, wear masks, take nothing to heart, and permanently squint your eyes at others, such that every connection becomes really just a business partnership. Take as much as you can, give only what you have to. That's cynicism.
It's a way of respecting the real. But it's also a way of denying the real, out of that respect.
My friends and I used to fight each other with hockey helmets and gloves on. We weren't stupid. We knew that as soon as they came off, it would cease to be fun, and take on a whole different kind of intensity.
I don't think it's about your profession, being a senior software engineer, an experienced programmer.
A programmer takes a recipe and bakes a cake. An engineer writes the recipe.
Quote :
It's more about your daily life experiences which you share with a lot of women with an office type kind of job. Living in a jungle without being the wife of an abstracted ideal and the mistress of a man who you deem inferior would be quite different.
I think you romanticize the jungle because you'd like to be the mistress of a man who you can look up to. But at the same time you'd think of yourself as some kind of amazon. Having your cake and eating it too. Mimetic conditioning of feminism, which deems women who submit to a man as despicable and weak, is being in conflict with the innate, bodily desires of finding a mate to look up to.
Think about this for a precious moment - If it would be thought of as noble, desirable, respected when a woman submits to her mate, by society at large and that particular male mate as well; Would that not harmonize your body with your mind?
Though, things have been moving in the opposite direction for quite some time.
You assume that I necessarily deem men "inferior", which is false. To assume that I desire a man who is "superior" is also false.
That is because I will not find a man who is 100% superior (I don't aim to find), and I will never be 100% inferior. In the range of all existing knowledge and skills, is unreasonable to expect that any one person would top you on all of them, if you have any self-respect.
There is no ideal man, there is no noble hunter.
I am an amazon in some respects, and I am a very frail woman in others. Likewise, the man I want to be with is a titan in some aspects, but vulnerable in others. We do not have a relationship of superior-inferior, and we don't have a 50-50 relationship. We have a 90-10 relationship on a certain respect, but that reverses to 10-90 in other respects.
I will look up to the man in the subjects in which he is superior, but he will never look up to me, he will not resign to being below me. In the subjects in which I am superior, I am his competitor and his aim will always be to overcome me. My quality drives him upward.
He knows that I am with him ONLY for him, nothing else. I do not depend on him, and I am not caged by him. The chains that do tie me to him were placed by me, and I hold the key. He knows that they are there, and he pulls at them, but I am the one who gives him power to do so, and this power is not unconditional. It is not a surrender, it is a guardianship.
It could also be the image of a cultivator,, lecturing him on corrupting the young while you being the careful one about where you "spill your seeds"...
Is satyr a cultivator?
Yes.
And the one who cultivates, also knows how to destroy.
And the one who knows how to injure, also knows how to rejuvenate.
That is called being a cultivator.
Quote :
He says he doesn't care about people and how they take his words. The throws his ideas like seeds in the wind and does not care where they land.
That is because you assume he is just another...
A rare type like him "cannot" care; they flow out of him...
"The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What is injurious to me is injurious in itself"; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a creator of values. He honours whatever he recognises in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. In the foreground there is the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow:--the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not--or scarcely--out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power.The noble man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness, and has reverence for all that is severe and hard." [N., BGE, 260]
Quote :
Satyr does not have a soulmate, dear.
That maybe true. The profound are always lonely at their heights...
One would have to have no scruples about honesty to declare themselves his equal.
In any case, is the solitary so pitiful and wretched to you?
How jaundiced and impoverished your eyes are, no music in your soul...
Quote :
He does not have a soul to match yours.
An appeal that is a flattery? You honour me, surely with that approach Precious.
His soul is emerald green, dear. Not obsidian...
No music in your soul... and no soul to your music. You are DEAD.
Quote :
He doesn't have one at all.
The high sun at noon, overflowing with light and magnanimity leaves no shadow, dear.
Quote :
I'm sorry that you've fallen for it,
You act as though he abused you!
So fragile, so coy... how jealous you are,,, that you only met him now...
I am sorry for you, dear.
Quote :
but I hope that your virgin skin will keep these scars, and you'll know better than to be a sucker again.
He's my hero, and yea, I asked for his autograph. He drew me an a--. And I felt so.......abused.........so cheapened.....
I volunteered to give him books and spread his path, and he just wanted to spread my a--.... and I felt.... so exploited. geez...
No music in your soul...
come to me dear... I will heal your scars. you still have innocence; I can feel it.
Atleast I do not go behind someone's back judging them and then pretending the next day to be seeking answers from them humbly of questions I have already judged on.
Only Hypocrites with no Honour do that.
Dear, if I wished to speak behind your back, I would talk in email, and not in a public chat that you religiously read. My opinion of you is clear for all to see.
Nice try. Meta-PHO.r... dear.
If you had any honour, you would have addressed me straight or spoken in my presence.
Quote :
You are an intelligent woman with marvelous potential, who has been seduced by an ideal and is blinded to all else, and has resigned to pathetically playing second fiddle and guard pouch to someone you see ad an idol, but is nothing but a man.
He is not any man, he is god-like... and rare.. and a jewel. YOU have no soul to sense him... weak and weary, you are. A mind-f---ked creature you are, for it is only the retards like the Xts. and the Jews and the Muslims, who abhor idol-worship...
Quote :
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of the parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing stead- fast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."(20:4–6)
Quote :
"Then God spoke all these words, saying, I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 1] You shall have no other gods before Me. 2] You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
And the rest of mankind, who were not killed with these plagues, repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood; which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk: [Revelation 9:20]
Note: “Jealous” does not mean He is suspicious or distrustful, but that He demands exclusive devotion.
The warnings about idols extend from one end of the Bible to the other..
And I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. [Ezekiel 20:18]
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. [Matt 4:10-11]
“… abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. [Acts 15:20]
And the rest of mankind, who were not killed with these plagues, repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood; which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk: [Revelation 9:20]
The Pauline Epistles contain several admonitions to "flee from idolatry"
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [Romans 1:23-25]
For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. [Ephesians 5:5]
Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry; [Colossians 3:5]
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you [Galatians 5:19-21]
An idol is made of one who is worthy of veneration. Who has WORTH-ship...
The word ‘worship’ derives from the Indo-European root wer or uer – ‘to turn’. The starting point of idol meditation is to orient yourself to gaze at it, infusing your breath in it which in Turn comes alive to speak to you... Ricouer's hermeneutics talks about 'doing away with idols,' namely, becoming critically aware of when we project our own wishes and constructs into things, so that they no longer address us from beyond ourselves as "other.", and we remain in our subjective solipsism. But there is a second kind of idolatry which is what I.E. Paganism was about.. the need to listen in openness to a symbol and thereby to allow creative events to occur "in front of" it, in front of our gaze on it, and to have its effect on us.
Its called Aletheia, dear.
Idol is derived from the Greek eidos, form, and the root weid- in Indo-European, whose derivatives include guide, wise, wisdom, guise, wit, view, visa, vision, advice, clairvoyance, idea, history, story.
"Who am I to deny my Master pleasure, simply because it is not at the hands of myself? He is free to do as he will, because of the life that he has given me. I am thankful for him, for the fact that out of all of us, I am the one that he chooses to keep and care for as his own." [Astrid Knowles, Switch]
Quote :
You are a sad thing to see.
If I were familiar with the emotion of pity, I would shed loads on you.
You are graced with beauty and common sense and are in a more advantaged position than me, than you can ever know,, and I pity you for the caricature you make of yourself, denying your feminity when your body screams for it.
Did you listen to his voice again? Did you grow moist, dear? Not in the eight eyes...
Did you show your husband your knickers, and what you enjoyed without scruples, dear?
Do you tell him, how you call Satyr petty and soulless, and then also tell how it IS his soul-less-ness and brutishness that excites you, that you adore? Do you tell him, what a hypocrite you are?
Do you have such a confidante you can tell how you have no f---ing clue about what you feel, and how splintered your mind is, how forked your tongue is, how crooked your heart is, how parted your thigh is, how fractured your soul is...?
Are you mentally fit to cultivate another, when you haven't a clue about your own feelings?
Your mind is greatly imbalanced.
Quote :
If only I could hug you my love
Come to me, darling. Let me knead your heart muscles... <3
He calls his considerations on whether or not pursuing a taste "consequence". Scruples is nothing but consequences that go beyond oneself. That he has no scruples, in my view, is a flaw.... and as I have stated before, I don't believe it for a second.
His "considerations" have nothing to do with moralistic virtues of the desired object. For you, your sense of aesthetic derives from a set of norms handed over by your ancestry, your Mores... morals.
Quote :
Quote :
It would when you try to put your nose in and intrude in every post and then i have to address you.
Tell me you didn't start this thread for me, dear, inspired by my weary cynicism as you call it.
This thread was triggered by Primal's stomach predation, dear; and it is because YOU whined, "It is a bit difficult to remain objective when every post has my name and is about me",,, I said the above. I have no problem with you posting, but when you pretend like it is my obsession to take your name, then I have to point out and expose it is because you choose to get involved, I address you.
Quote :
Ah, yes... it's a metaphor.
Yes. A modern cynical feminist.
Quote :
My feminism is such that I can acknowledge myself as an incomplete and faulty self, but at the same time stand alone, and not under the shadow of a man... more so a petty little man. Such that I can embrace my nature and find no guilt in it, while at the same time understanding my duty, and follow it through. It is such that I can serve, clean, feed and provide means even to those I do not find deserving, but without losing my pride. Such that I am understand my need for the other, but at the same time provide my own subsistence. Because I am as Mother is. And Mother does not care who you are, she will take you. She will use you in your role, and give you bliss, and then take back what you took from her. I am a flawed woman, but I know how to live with a flawed man... and it is that very skill that makes me stronger than you, because there is no sovereign huntress, and there is no noble hunter, and there is no god.
[/quote]
Such hypocrisy...
Speaking of earth and soil and planting and what not..... and should a noble hunter Start with the BODY, with Physicality, he is an Abuser? A petty man? A soulless man? An exploiter?
Grow the f--- up!!
Flesh sounds different in the mouths of different people...
Quote :
"The most spiritual men feel the stimulus and charm of sensuous things in a way that other men-those with "fleshly hearts"-cannot possibly imagine and ought not to imagine: they are sensualists in the best faith, because they accord the senses a more fundamental value than to that fine sieve, that thinning and reducing machine, or whatever we may call what in the language of the people is named "spirit." The strength and power of the senses-this is the essential thing in a well-constituted and complete man: the splendid "animal" must be given first-what could any "humanization" matter otherwise!" [WTP, 1045]
Quote :
"When the sense of the earth unites with the sense of one's body, one becomes earth of the earth, a plant among plants, an animal born from the soil and fertilizing it. In this union, the body is confirmed in its pantheism." [Dag Hammarskjold, Markings]
Quote :
"The ancient rhythms of the earth have insinuated themselves into the rhythms of the human heart. The earth is not outside us; it is within: the clay from where the tree of the body grows." [John O'Donohue, Beauty: The Invisible Embrace]
Quote :
"Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and those blasphemers died along with him. Now to blaspheme against the earth is the greatest sin...
Once the soul looked contemptuously upon the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing: -- the soul wished the body lean, monstrous, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth. But that soul was itself lean, monstrous, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of this soul! So my brothers, tell me: What does your body say about your soul? Is not your soul poverty and filth and wretched contentment?" [N., TSZ, Prologue, 3]
Quote :
""Body am I and soul" -- so says the child. And why should one not speak like children?
But the awakened one, the knowing one, says: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something about the body."
The body is a great wisdom, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.
An instrument of your body is also your small wisdom, my brother, which you call "mind"-- a little instrument and toy of your great wisdom.
"I," you say, and are proud of that word. But the greater thing -- in which you are unwilling to believe -- is your body with its great wisdom; that does not say "I," but does "I."
Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage -- it is called Self; it dwells in your body, it is your body.
There is more wisdom in your body than in your best wisdom." [N., TSZ, Despisers of the Body]
Precious, you despise your Body.
You who despises the Earth is speaking of Earth and Mother and Cultivation? Look into the mirror, dear.
You are ashamed and bitter and jealous you cannot connect your body and mind together; your soul is fractured. You deny your feminity and compensate it with continuous thought on earth and food and cultivation...
What you deny on the inside is what will devour you from the outside. The law of nature.
You think the path you chose is your independence? Its a design, dear.
It chose you, it Demands from you because you are the way you are, shunning your inner earth. Open your eyes.
Body and Self is one continuity.
Beauty exposes intelligence as much as intelligence exposes beauty; the one does not have to exclude the other.
A flaw?
Quote :
"The whole conception of an order of rank among the passions: as if the right and normal thing were for one to be guided by reason-with the passions as abnormal, dangerous, semi-animal, and, moreover, so far as their aim is concerned, nothing other than desires [or pleasure -
Passion is degraded as if it were only in unseemly cases, and not necessarily and always, the motive force; The misunderstanding of passion and reason, as if the latter were an independent entity and not rather a system of relations between various passions and desires; and as if every passion did not possess its quantum of reason." [N., WTP, 387]
A flaw?
Every fault-line follows from the original logic; a seismic wave can erupt haphazardly in any direction, but this too is still a consequence, a continuity from the original logic, the original awe and awesomeness of that tremor the noble hunter sent in you.
Get it?
There is no flaw as such.
It is a ramification, a progression, an unsevered continuous unfolding of the original innate logic of a be-ing. That is not a flaw, that is the beauty of its design. There is no break between the essence and its seismic extensions.
Only the ones who have no self-trust and so cannot trust anything, bitter, cynical, weary like you project your own limitations, your own exhaustion into the world and call it a lovely theory.
Reality says otherwise.
Reality says, this board has atleast more than one noble hunter I know of.
Do not inject your weary feminism and poison the character and the reality of the existence of noble hunters.
If you cannot rise upto see it just because you have experienced abuse in your life with the one you chose, and instead want to sling dirt and slam others and tarnish their characters with No Proof, you should just remain speechless or continue to laugh like an imbecile.
I own everything I say, Lyssa. And everything I’ve said is still there.
Shuffling responsibility like you did is also still there.
Some food for thought.
Quote :
"There is whole tradition, systematisedby the Aristotelian school, according to which the production of edible plants results from several types of 'cooking', each of which operates at a different level: the cooking of the earth by the fire of the sun; the internal concoction of the juices in fruits and plants; concoction promoted by agriculture; and finally, the cooking of plants by fire in the kitchen. The first type represents the most general level of agriculture in Greece. In Xenopbon's Oeconomica, preparing the unploughed land is not simply a matter of turning the soil over in the spring time or getting rid of the weeds with either a hoe or a plough, but above all of allowing the 'raw' part of the earth to be baked by the Sun. But the Sun's action is not limited to this preliminary baking; it also operates in concoction through ripening or pepansis: as it ripens in the rays of the summer sun, the fruit undergoes a cooking process which softens it and which, given its wet nature, resembles cooking by boiling. However, at this second level, concoction only takes place given certain conditions determined both by the degree of cultivation of the plant and by the particular type of farming involved. In point of fact, the sun only appears to operate as a culinary agent to the degree that it can prolong a purely internal concoction which it is the business of agriculture to recognise and promote.
One of the 'problems' in the Aristotelian collection uses a technical term from culinary vocabulary to define agriculture: to cultivate plants is to cook them (pettein), to make them soft and good to eat. Even more explicitly, agriculture is described as the art of educating (paideuin) plants. But just as in the kitchen one does not cook everything indiscriminately, in agriculture not every species of plant can be cultivated. There is a clear cut distinction between two types of plant: one grows and develops from well-cooked nourishment, while the other derives its sustenance only from that which is uncooked and is a principle of corruption. Although farming succeeds in educating and cooking the former type, the latter plants are intractible to its effects; these are wild plants that will not grow in cultivated earth. If the attempt to domesticate them through farming is made they simply die. The caper plant is an example, flourishing when it grows on tombs yet incapable of growing in cultivated ground. The distinction between uncultivated and cultivated earth is not only a matter of the cultivation of plants. Cultivation can only succeed within the limits already determined by a more ancient opposition - between plants that are raw and plants that are cooked. In other words, agriculture can only 'soften' plants that are already subject to concoction; it can only cultivate those species which are, in a sense, already part of it." [Detienne, Gardens of Adonis]
Good "Cultivation" [benefitting] does not come about pleasantly sometimes, and needs to go through scorchings of fire on many levels, many times.
A sword that is not tempered with the right degree of fire, that refuses to go through it, will break before the battle even begins.
Pleasantness, harmony and confluence of wavelengths is not how those truths and knowledge are born, those that sing from your stream. Life and death attitude is what makes a man radiate himself out as light and fire, and as more than the temporality he is.
Man determines measure.
Satyr lives out his essence,, no point in seeing him unpleasant or ugly. He is honesty incarnate when he wants to establish measure with you.
Forget what comes of his mouth when he says he doesn't give any,, do you see his actions? 3 months non-stop with you... Can you feel his com/passion?
Could you understand? Will you deny yourself the acknowledgement he's been more forthright than you?
Quote :
Socrates drank the poison, rather than retract what he stood for, and live.
After explaining his position and speaking at lengths about it, he was content to have a cock sacrificed to Asclepius.
Come Mo. No need to drink poison, or gift a cock to anyone.
A programmer takes a recipe and bakes a cake. An engineer writes the recipe.
I'm not sure whether or not I understand the baking allegory. So you are not programming, as in writing code, but you orchestrate the programmers? Or are you in algorithm development, which get implemented in various softwares?
Quote :
That is because I will not find a man who is 100% superior (I don't aim to find), and I will never be 100% inferior. In the range of all existing knowledge and skills, is unreasonable to expect that any one person would top you on all of them, if you have any self-respect.
uhm... yeah, so, do you look up to him? Do you think of him as your leader? Is he in charge or are you in charge? I know there are degrees and all, and categories and multi-dimensional factors and an iterative, banal, reciprocal, approach to the infinity of plausible deniability but if you were to bring it down to a simple Yes or No....
Yes it can be more extreme or less so but usually someone in the more dominant one in a relationship.
uhm... yeah, so, do you look up to him? Do you think of him as your leader? Is he in charge or are you in charge? I know there are degrees and all, and categories and multi-dimensional factors and an iterative, banal, reciprocal, approach to the infinity of plausible deniability but if you were to bring it down to a simple Yes or No....
Yes it can be more extreme or less so but usually someone in the more dominant one in a relationship.
Of course he is in charge. He's the one pulling at my chains. What self-respecting man would consciously subject themselves to a woman? I top from the bottom, dear.
I walked into a forest serene and calm, and I knew I was in a park. I felt no fear, the park ranger was near...and a stone's throw away a kiosk full of fruits and trinkets, and bottled water to quench my thirsts.
I walked into a forest, wild, and untamed, full of frightening sounds, smells, and threats, where even the water was full of dirt and hidden eyes...and I knew I was in nature. My tastes were made here and not there, in that park. Will I forget? I am alert here, because no matter how beautiful the tiger it is also ferocious, and I must be ware, for I am but a fragile ape that cannot even climb well. I do not value the tiger's beauty because it is nice to me, because it is harmless...but because it reminds me of the forces that care not, but force me to take care. The tiger may eat me, but also an other, weaker, cleansing the herbivores from the forest so that they do not eat it to the ground - they do not consume it with their gluttony, that must regurgitate the devoured to taste it again. It colorful symmetry is but the start of its value. I need to think beyond my organs to find the beauty of its agency.
Am I paranoid? Am I ill for being cautious, for thinking twice before I move in the underbrush?
And, having seen the jungle, when I stroll in the park, full of caged animals to look at, behind cages, would I feel no primal anxiety when they turn my way? Would I enter their cage thinking them well-fed and tame? Would I confuse an other's hunt, for my own?
I never forget the jungle when walking in the zoo, the park; when I visit the aquarium I do not neglect the ocean's abyss. I am reminded of the costs I pay for all this opulence, and these fenced in no hunting zones. I remember the supermarket isles are not of my doing, but I must pay for them, nevertheless.
I never forget the wilderness when strolling amongst the tame.
And when I look upon my bookshelves, I do not pride myself for having read.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Tue May 27, 2014 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
uhm... yeah, so, do you look up to him? Do you think of him as your leader? Is he in charge or are you in charge? I know there are degrees and all, and categories and multi-dimensional factors and an iterative, banal, reciprocal, approach to the infinity of plausible deniability but if you were to bring it down to a simple Yes or No....
Yes it can be more extreme or less so but usually someone in the more dominant one in a relationship.
Of course he is in charge. He's the one pulling at my chains. What self-respecting man would consciously subject themselves to a woman? I top from the bottom, dear.
I'm thinking - You are the female magician in chains and he is the assistant, making sure that everything is well prepared for the 'Great Escape' magic trick. Convincing the audience that everything is well secured.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37280 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I can smell them sweat, pheromones assault my mind.
But even swine have an ego, and may feel proud to be hungered for by a tiger. I am full, and so they must blame someone for this insult.
They call to you. Will you not save yourself to be like them? I...am "just a man", and though they fake it in their daily lives, how could they not return to the fake when the real bites?
A hedonist, belly full, fridge well stocked, the walls keeping out the nastiness of austerity. How can need explain their engorged organs?
When they come here their fullness is one of excess hunger. The emptiness screaming out, what their brains deny.
I'm thinking - You are the female magician in chains and he is the assistant, making sure that everything is well prepared for the 'Great Escape' magic trick. Convincing the audience that everything is well secured.
lol good one
I missed your question before:
Quote :
I'm not sure whether or not I understand the baking allegory. So you are not programming, as in writing code, but you orchestrate the programmers? Or are you in algorithm development, which get implemented in various softwares?
A software architect conceptualizes. He says the cake will be orange flavored, will be moist, will have icing, will be served cold with a dollop of chantilly. A software engineer strategizes and then develops a formula. He thinks we will add sour cream to the batter to make it moist, we will use both baking soda and baking powder to maximize carbonization, we will use both orange juice and zest so that the orange flavor is strong. Then he writes it all down in a way that it can be implemented with success. A software programmer implements. He'll take the formula and follow it to the word. If the formula is ambiguous or incomplete, he cannot succeed as he does not make decisions. He has to ask the enginner
