Questions: Self-Actualization

Lyssa, I'd like to refer you to my latest post on the MKTSA thread if you missed it.

Anyway, I respectfully request instructive criticism from you or anyone else here.

Satyr wrote:

Stuart. wrote:

This is my first of many to whomever wishes to answer:

It seems that when a person is mature to his circumstances he has lived the type fully integrated; to have had time for thought precludes maturity. To be self-thought and mature while still under forty, how is this possible?

Suffering.
To not be sheltered, told comforting lies, protected from reality, allowed to live in fantasy beyond the brain's developmental years.

To be thrust into maturity early on, as a do or die, dilemma.

When Rushton talks about the "regression to the mean effect" for me it's also about the inherited mean not being cultivated to its fullest potentials.
The genetic average is the mean of inheritance.
The memetic average is the cultural mean, of what is considered "official, proper, truth, civility, politeness, self-evident, good manners, unifying rituals/traditions etc."  

Necessity (need), being the mother of all invention (action), in lower degrees would result in a decrease of motive.
The source, direction, the brain confronts necessity is also the direction it will be motivated to act towards.

For example:
If the environment a child is raised in is relatively stable, ordered, predictable it loses interest. It finds there the expected, that which it takes for granted.
But genes are unaffected by memetic interventions, and so need persists, though easily satiated, organically. The brain receives pressures from internal, organic sources.
It turns it's exploitative eye of need inwards. It wants to find the source from which this relentless agitation is coming from.
It is, relatively, comfortable, its basic needs met, yet restless, not filly satisfied.  

Not to mention that typically >40 are still immature.

Satyr wrote:

Stuart. wrote:

How can one endure this perpetual constipation? Perhaps, some have the ability to absorb their excrement.

Or, if it does not kill them, they learn to push it out, and have a proper bowel movement.

Pressure...
Pressure solves everything.

Take these morons that come here thinking they are free from need.
They come here, contradicting the very premise they then propose to explain who they are.

It does not matter what word they use to justify it, what excuse.
Humor, boredom, entertainment, whatever.
Here they are.

Actions....actions being more honest than any words.  

When ideal/idea is irreversibly manifested, expressed into form, phenomenon.

Stuart. wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Stuart. wrote:

How can one endure this perpetual constipation? Perhaps, some have the ability to absorb their excrement.

Or, if it does not kill them, they learn to push it out, and have a proper bowel movement.

Maybe it's not so much a matter of some not giving a shit as it of them having the control to wait until a toilet can be found, or any place where the shit will be properly disposed, rather than it sitting there further fouling the place they must reside.

Quote :

Pressure...
Pressure solves everything.

Take these morons that come here thinking they are free from need.
They come here, contradicting the very premise they then propose to explain who they are.

It does not matter what word they use to justify it, what excuse.
Humor, boredom, entertainment, whatever.
Here they are.

Actions....actions being more honest than any words.

Generously, this forum is open for higher purposes. To think that some would have the nerve to come here unwashed, hungry and/or overly full, expecting to be gratified.

Many come here and get their feelings hurt, offended, when they get the don't indefinable measure of attention they presume they deserve or are owed. A constant chip on their shoulders, which seeks approval nonetheless.They are still reliant on others for justification.
It's unnatural to want people to think about you all the time: when one is fast asleep,e.g., it is impossible to give thoughts over to another person.

Between self-valuing and self-identifying rests a dark sea of possibilities.
Much of self-valuing is based on the projection of 'self' into a bigger 'Self', sometimes at the cost of the smaller, original, version.
And, when self-valuing means I appreciate myself with no reason, and using myself as the standard...no objective standard, in relation to no idea(l) then it becomes a form of narcissism and solipsism.

Satyr wrote:

Much of self-valuing is based on the projection of 'self' into a bigger 'Self', sometimes at the cost of the smaller, original, version.

I'm not clear on what is meant by the larger 'Self' in the context of that statement. Is it the narcissist who does that or one who values himself based on an honest objective standard?

For example, a narcissist's self-worth is generally based on the approval of others, but is seemingly simultaneously often based on an absolute such as 'humanity' - both could be considered larger 'Selves'. But, I believe the main criteria used by one who values himself based on objective standards are heritage and family, which also seem like they could be described as a bigger 'Self'.

Then by the smaller, original, version, do you mean the self who's the product of the past, not the whims of the persona, or the self, that for a narcissist and solipsist, has long been the object of his fantasy?

When you make yourself the standard of evaluating yourself there is no need to say more.

self = sum of all nurturing - nature/past.

Self = sum of all ideas, principles, noetic constructs.
Self an abstraction the self inserts itself within, or projects itself within.
An idea(l).

Once the transference of identity reaches a certain point then the self, associated with nature/past (genetic), can be sacrificed for the sake of the idealized Self (memetic).
The process is felt as a liberation - enlightenment it may be called, or progress.
The individual can define itself with whatever idea it wishes...and the most prominent ideas will be the most popular, immediate.
If the idea(l) is detached from reality, the self can sacrifice itself to a pure noetic abstraction.
It may even nullify itself: egoless, selfless, with no past, a construct of the immediate.

So I'll try to explain the slight the difference between how before reading your above two posts I assumed one - who is already narcissistic and solipsistic who wishes to peel away at the idealized self until nothing remains but the natural self - would best go about this, and how I assume they would now.

I still assume that one need dissolve all prior notions of what constitute oneself, with all the accompanied humility, until one is neither proud nor ashamed of oneself. But, before, I assumed that to do this one need look at the world objectively and spend at least an equal amount of time looking at oneself objectively.

The problem I realize now seems to be that in that strategy one is still looking at the idealized self, not just the natural self, to some degree, no matter how objective he thinks he's being, because he's made the choice to continue looking at himself as a prior distinguished part of reality.

One may better simply look at reality alone (yes, knowing that they have a perspective on reality that comes from their body, or a certain body, with a past the determines its nature), and then being that his body is part of reality, it/he will, without prior intent, observe his/its body as one more detectable pattern among other. And then interpret those patterns, as they're significance comes from, not an egotistical perspective, but how some are more clear than others.

Then, assuming I now have it correct so far, one will, being human - a product of his family/ancestors, almost certainly observe for himself how the pattern which happens to represent what he's always labeled his body (the noumenon for the phenomenon) is such a product of nature (the sum of past nurturing in his ancestors), and realize that should he not continue as they have (to put it simply), he will be orienting himself to a memetic ideal that has attached itself onto him in the same pattern as a leech attaching itself to a host.

Consciousness is outwardly focused. The other is what is distinguished.
The different types of otherness perceived as different patterns of interactivity.

Self-consciousness discovers self amongst otherness.
The internal hierarchies (psychology) are juxtaposed against the external hierarchies (world), and the self finds its place: lit is confronted, challenged, inspired to become more resistant, more substantial.

The subjective is compared to the indifferent, fluctuating, yet still exhibiting patterns of consistency (order), objective world.
By placing the standard upon the otherness which is both indifferent to the self (subjective), unknown for the most part (mysterious, uncertain, producing anxiety), and not willfully controlled by the self (challenging, threatening), the self challenges itself and measures itself against reality.

Not talking about manmade environments where there is both a motive and a will undelrynig the hierarchies.



Nature = sum of all nurturing - past
To know self is to discover this past, which is immutable, and determining.
One cannot choose this past, but only accept it and deal with it.
The past/nature becomes what challenges the individual to improve and to overcome...not by denying and ignoring and dismissing, but by knowing and seeing, and accepting.

The desired object/objective, the idea(l) is now rooted in reality.

The Modern ignores the past, entirely or selectively...and this it considers its liberation.
He forgets, denies, dismisses; he does not accept and challenge himself.
It places itself, or some abstraction of self, as the starting point, and focuses towards the future - progressive.
The self is some tabula rasa born as a clean slate awaiting to be written upon by the immediate environment - which is manmade and dominated by human artifices.
It's identity is shaped by this acceptance of the immediate as its identifier.
and since the immediate is always altering the self is fluid - it can reinvent itself constantly.
There is no past/nature to limit its options. The only thing limiting it is the environment which is manmade and so directed by a human will, ideal.
The world becomes the world of man.
To love the world is to love the human artifices which intervene upon an indifferent world, void of meaning, purpose, and universal morals.
To hate the world is to hate mankind.

The self can now become a manmade construct, because there is no past/nature limiting what can be projected as the intended desired Self - the idealized self.
As fashion change so does the identifier. the self feels free to become whatever it wishes.
It is helped by this communal wisdom which it can sample, by restrictions to behavior enforcing a median behavioral standard that excludes nobody, and by the sheltering force of the manmade, memetic, environment.

The past/nature (ancestors) is never overcome.
It can be dismissed and ignored and forgotten but it is present...as the present, the apparent, is a manifestation of this past.
The individual is a representation of this past/nature (sum of all nurturing). This self can be contained, directed, be assimilated within the immediate environment, such as the meme (culture, nation).
His past/nature is suppressed, sublimated, redirected...if it contradicts the immediate.
This create the schism, the internal stress, the pressure to conform to the culture or to some nihilistic idea(l).
For most - for many reason - the benefit of this outweigh the costs. They want to escape what has been determined; they want to believe that they can invent themselves and be anything.
The "anything", of course, is limited by the environment which is now the only reference point.

Freed from this restricting past/nature, all identifiers referring to nature/past are dismissed as primitive, passe, inferior, already overcome.
The individual can now define itself as whatever it wishes, drawing inspiration form the only reference point left to it, which is the immediate, the present.
Ancestry, blood, family, lose their force. They become what is overcome, what has been left behind and forgotten.

The materialist, hedonist implodes this present into the sensation, the feeling.
The feeling becomes his focal point. It has no cause, no source, no evolutionary purpose....it is the beginning of all and the end of all.
For other variants of Modernity it might be god, as the outside space/time reality.
Others variants might find a replacement identifier in nationalism, or in some political ideology.
For others it is some coming, immanent, future idea(l), object/objective. Not even the present, the immediate constitutes a limitation.

The possibilities are endless, within the memetic constraints, because there is no past/nature limiting them.

What defines the Modern is a uniformity expressing itself as superficial multiplicities.
Of course appearances are shallow, for him, because his appearance is a shallow construct.
he feels his duplicity and superficiality, but feels freed by its flexibility. Identity is something to put on and take off, drawing inspiration from the immediate environment...it does not restrict an individual for a lifetime.

The immediate environment is a manmade construct, full of human artifices. It is immersed in a human matrix...art imitating art, simulation of a simulacrum.
Nature/past, outside of these artifices is prohibited, or selectively sampled.

Now, even the contrary to nature/past can be appreciated as another possibility, within this human intervening environment.
Nihilism can become the population controlling ideology (psychology, perspective).
It soothes with its infinite promise; it liberates the most wronged by nature/past, from nature/past; it detaches the mind from an indifferent (cold), uncertain world and attaches it to the immediate, manmade, predictable present; it remains flexible enough to accommodate, and dismiss any past burdening the individual, offering the compensating symbolism of social symbols (money, social status, garments, aesthetic interventions etc.)

All can appreciate themselves as "valuable" if they remain disciplined to the communal mythologies.
All perspectives become precious if they do not challenge the premise that this is so.
One purchases the right to be anything they want, to believe in anything they want, anything that pleases them, with servitude.
They must be left to their own beliefs.

The illusion that man is the center of reality.
A divide and control, method.
The only way this is necessary is within an environment of growing populations and shrinking spaces - the absence of an accessible frontiers, making certain self-negating, self-regulating, self-numbing, ideologies necessary.

Our anti-Nihilistic war must begin on the battlefield where Nihilism emerges as a plausible option, using the Nihilistic weaponry: words, language, abstraction detached from experience, resulting in an in-congruence between the real and the ideal so extreme as to result in a psychotic schism.

We will become its antithesis; the negation of negation.
Words, referring to abstractions, attaching to empiricism, to reality, to sensual experience.
The word, symbolizing the abstraction (noumenon) must be reattached to the phenomenon, to whatever degree it can.
Words, referring to concepts, such as love, human, equality, morality, must be given a pragmatic utility, and a reference in the empirical, the natural - because nature is always perceived as a looking back, and the perception of patterns. the deeper back one goes to sample samples the more concrete the awareness of the past becomes.

If the concept cannot be attached to anything real, (empirical, sensually experienced, objective), then it must be abandoned as a purely human construct - pure self-referential subjectivity, undisturbed by anything real.
And of the concepts already being detached from reality, in Modern systems, a process of reattachment must become our resistance to the nihilistic trend.

Harvie, Ferguson wrote:

System and existence cannot be merged: ‘system and conclusiveness correspond to each other, but existence is the very opposite…. Existence is the spacing that holds apart; the systematic is the conclusiveness that combines.’17

The incompleteness of existence cannot be properly represented, far less explained, as a ‘category’ within any system. The modern idea of reason has traversed an enormous distance from Descartes to Hegel, yet the speculative system is immanent in its birth as a project of ‘pure’ thought. The ideal of detachment, objectivity and logical coherence ends in a formalism which cannot even mirror the world from which it has detached itself. Even so, non-existent illusion that it is, the system has come to disguise and dominate people’s conceptions of themselves, unnecessarily constraining the possibilities of actuality left open to them. Johannes draws attention to this false idealism which the Enlightenment has bequeathed to the contemporary world:

To be a human being has been abolished, and every speculative thinker
confuses himself with humankind, whereby he becomes something
infinitely great and nothing at all.
(Postscript, p. 124)

If Christianity is made an ‘object of knowledge’ and part, therefore, of an ‘external’ reality, it is destroyed. And to approach it ‘religiously’ in this light is even more fundamentally mistaken: ‘an objective acceptance of Christianity (sit venia verbo) is paganism or thoughtlessness’.18 Christianity is not an ‘object’ which, external to the subject, can be known in its detachment, it is not a ‘thing’ which can be understood in that way at all:

Christianity, therefore, protests against all objectivity; it wants the subject
to be infinitely concerned about himself. What it asks about is the
subjectivity; the truth of Christianity, if it is at all, is only in this;
objectively, it is not at all.
(Postscript, p. 130)

Christianity is wholly inward; all its apparently outward forms are no more than attempts at indirect communication—attempts which have themselves been absorbed into a historical process through which they become misrepresented as authoritative statements.        

Harvie, Ferguson wrote:

The self’s encounter with the absolute is a process of existential reflection, rather than thought reflection. But reflection requires a mirror, a reflecting surface upon which the subject can focus the self. This is, from a psychological viewpoint, just the meaning of the ‘sign of contradiction’. A contradiction ‘attracts attention’ to itself:

There is a something that makes it impossible not to look—and look, as
one is looking one sees as in a mirror, one comes to see oneself…. A
contradiction placed squarely in front of a person…is a mirror.
(Practice, pp. 126–7)

The metaphor of the mirror is both instructive and potentially misleading. In medieval theology the metaphor of the mirror had stood for the central location of man in the divine cosmological plan. In the human soul was a model of the entire cosmic structure which man, as a microcosm, reflected internally. But Anti-Climacus has a very different notion of ‘reflection’ here. His is a religion of ‘hidden inwardness’ in a cosmos from which the human subject has become detached. There is no longer any separation between the mirror, the observer and the reflection. The peculiar uniformity and dullness of the modern world is here given a specifically religious development; the ‘compressed’ subjectivity of melancholy is rediscovered in the most ‘advanced’ of the pseudonyms. Anti- Climacus expresses the notion in the language of Either. ‘The contradiction confronts him with a choice, and as he is choosing, together with what he chooses, he himself is disclosed.’

Satyr wrote:

Codes is also what Nietzsche used...that Oracle-like method, which Christianity adopted and applied in the Bible.

Then let us clarify...simplify.
To speak clearly in a world dominated by slaves and the control of slaves whoa re now convinced of being masters of their own destiny, is to be expected.
I often speak of parasitism.

In a world that punishes divergence, while professing to be pro individuality, it is best to wear the skins and the smells and the ho9rns of those one depends upon for nutrition.

There is no shame in this.

But when dealing with your own kind, it is noble to speak clearly, simply and directly...like a man.
Obfuscating and clouding your words in rhetoric with no substance is to pretend that you understand more than you actually do.
The world is full of this pretense, making knowledge a synonym with understanding.

Remember the laconic decree which simplified an entire mindset down to three basic tenets:
Know thyself
and
Nothing in Excess
and
Make a pledge and mischief is nigh

The third of which has little application in a world with no responsibilities and no honor.
The entire code of conduct of Apollo is contained in these three pledges.

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

Quote :

Delphic Maxim 19. Do not use an oath (Ορκω μη χρω)

How do you differentiate oaths and pledges, and why are they to be avoided?

Someone on this forum recently asked me about standards.

Firstly, take the three prevalent sayings on this forum: know thyself, live lightly and nothing in excess.

Knowing oneself is a process, where a standard comes in related to that, is to be as honest as possible with oneself. When speaking to others honesty isn't always necessary though. It depends on the people and the context. In an environment where one is anonymous, for example, to lie to others is essentially to lie to oneself, because there could be no repercussions for telling the truth nor rewards for lying beyond what repercussions and rewards one basically would inflict on oneself through one's insecurities.

The other two sayings essentially express the same thing as each other. But, I use the two sayings slightly diffetrently to place a different emphasis on the general notion they both carry. To live lightly, is certainly to live without excess, but when I think of living lightly I mostly think in terms of avoiding exess specifically related to possessions and responsibilities. One may carefully discriminate what possessions one decides to keep or acquire, and what responsibilities that one continues to attempt to fulfill or decides to take on.

When I think of the saying, nothing in excess, I mostly think in terms of recurring cycles of activity. There are things that one does a reasonably predictable amount of time each day, week, month or year, but with that saying in mind one's standard may be to spread them out, rather than to do one excessively, then another, and so on. So for example, a habit regarding physical exercise may be to exercise vigorously for several months then to spend several months not exercising. A better balance is obviously desirable. So one can see how the saying, nothing in excess, doesn't just refer to not doing something too much in general, but not doing too much at once, even if the net amount of activity will be the same.

The creative cycle as I understand it so far is basically; first acquiring information from one's environment (reading, observing, listening to words, music, etc.), passively digesting the information (boredom), actively digesting it (contemplation), then finally, expression in a variety of forms. One may try to avoid excess in any stage of the cycle, and rather attempt to let it flow as it's natural to do so. So one may try not to take in more information than one can at one time (over reading, for example); not to spend to much time being passive, which will eventually lead to mental and physical decline; not to spend too much time in contemplation, something which may lead to internal stress that manifests itself through one's physical health; and not to try to make something of nothing, meaning not to express oneself, when there is little left to express for the time being.

So one can see how one may set a standard of avoiding excessively doing something (nothing in excess) and taking on more burden than what may likely be useful for one's betterment (live lightly).

This all relates to the notion of power or becoming. One gains power by understanding oneself, by becoming more whole, a more distinguishes entity amidst others. One further gains power by taking the pattern which is the distinguished entity which one is, and increasing it's complexity, efficiency, and size. For example, an entity may grow bigger, but keep it's original pattern [I originally accidentally wrote strength], and at least initially that will be an increase of power. But, if a larger entity consumes a smaller entity, the smaller entity is not more powerful despite now being part of something larger, because it will have lost it's pattern or what distinguishes it.

When one understands the above one understand why it's important to avoid certain responsibilities, and to avoid owning more possessions than one can properly use in one's pursuit of power.

Relationships between people create responsibilities. Clearly, one would expect a relationship to be gainful for oneself, and if the other is not someone of low esteem, one would not want to simply use him crassly then forget, rather one would set a standard of conduct regarding him or her, such as making an effort to properly reciprocate what is gained. So for people of high quality, a standard may be to be consistent with them, to not ask too much at one time, nor to ask more than he can, or has reason to, give. And to be honest with them, to expose more of one's being to him, assuming that one would best gain from him having his being more honestly exposed as well.

So we see how commonly spoken of standards of conduct may best be used. Not to attempt the futile and defeating task of applying the same standards universally to all people, but to discriminate how one uses them. So for some people, the utmost, honesty/transparency/integrity, decency, kindness, earnestness, willingness to go out of one's way, is necessary; and it's further necessary to be careful about making excessive commitments, and to honor all commitment or promises previously made.

Then one may treat lesser people differently. Not in a base way, but in a way that one could say that they almost, in their very being, expect. For example, if another is an imbecilic but and honest imbecile, one would use them to one's advantage, but not try to use deceit in the effort, but simply let any lopsidedness of the exchange be due simply to the other's inability to understand it. But, when referring to dishonest people, whether they be actively dishonest, or passively dishonest due to an internal dissociation (delusion), one may treat them accordingly to how they treat oneself.

Developing standards is always a work in progress, but one can see how the three major saying of this forum, know thyself, live lightly, and nothing in excess, and the metaphysics of being and power are useful in that process.

Stuart- wrote:

Someone on this forum recently asked me about standards.

Firstly, take the three prevalent sayings on this forum: know thyself, live lightly and nothing in excess.

Knowing oneself is a process, where a standard comes in related to that, is to be as honest as possible with oneself.

Is it a matter of communication coupled with introspection?  When one is honest with X, usually it is another person.   Here one is to be honest with oneself, hence I moved to communication.  Honesty is often seen as relaying correct information - about what one thinks and feels.   So communicating this stuff to oneself.
Or being willing to actually experience what is there, presumably: to notice it, accept that it currently is there, whatever it is.   So I mention introspection.   Is it only through introspection one finds out what is there and is then honest with the fruits of this introspection?   How does one deal with the incredible fallibility of introspection? (I did notice your 'as honest as possible') Not the same issue as this is around the issue of the nature of things one can contact via introspection - the flitting thoughts and feelings that are egodystonic, for example.   As long as they are 'inside' cut off from expression, can one see them as they are?   These latter issues are what led me to ask about introspection and if there are other methods involved in this honest self-relation. If you, Stuart, have other methods. And I am the one who used the word introspection. Perhaps that was off. Let me know.

To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?  Or to put it another way: we have great creativity in the creation of an internal judge.   We need not have morals in any conventional sense, certainly without a deity or religion it is still possible to find on the top, so to speak, a process that inhibits the ability to even notice portions of the self, let alone realize what they actually are as they dart into the spotlight and dart away again.  How does not know how small the little 'i' is that has taken over?   Thinking, I suppose, in gurdjieffian metaphors.

Hi Kovacs,

You ask a lot of interesting questions, that may be partially answered in the below thread I made:

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

At the moment I'm not ready to start exploring that subject once again, but I'll eventually get back to it and perhaps give a detailed response to your questions.

Kovacs wrote:

To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?

Doubtlessly, there's a connection, but I can't say I'm overly aware of the process. Personally, after the long process of claiming to have very few values, which took place during the early days you knew me on the other forum, I'm still trying to develop significant amount of values, which while likely highly influenced by those here, I can actually say are entirely my own.

Stuart- wrote:

Hi Kovacs,

You ask a lot of interesting questions, that may be partially answered in the below thread I made:

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

At the moment I'm not ready to start exploring that subject once again, but I'll eventually get back to it and perhaps give a detailed response to your questions.

I can respond in the other thread and you can take it up if and when you want. It seems to me a critical issue as far as self-actualization. I would have moved from questions once I got a clearer sense of what you were putting forward.

Kovacs wrote:

To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?

Quote :

Doubtlessly, there's a connection, but I can't say I'm overly aware of the process. Personally, after the long process of claiming to have very few values, which took place during the early days you knew me on the other forum, I'm still trying to develop significant amount of values, which while likely highly influenced by those here, I can actually say are entirely my own.

You can tell what your values are by noticing what you want to avoid doing and being and what you strive to do and be, even if these are not thought out. For example shame can be a metric, though clearly not the only one, and the avoidance of it or what one thinks will avoid it. I understand you are trying to work out, consciously, a set of values, but something is always in place, adjusting or striving to. Even a standard of 'nothing in excess' sets up some sort of evaluation process where one tries to measure and adjust. I was likely, though I can't be sure, going to try to tie that criterion into the issues I raised around self-knowledge. But I'll see how it goes on the other thread.

Satyr wrote:

Stuart- wrote:

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

Quote :

Delphic Maxim 19. Do not use an oath (Ορκω μη χρω)

How do you differentiate oaths and pledges, and why are they to be avoided?

The emphasis on the "use".
Do not use an oath.
Take an oath, do not use it to convince.
Akin to the Christian "Do not take the Lord's name in vain"...as in do not be careless with the sacred.

When two noble people are discussing future events and how they'll be involved in such events, they'll take especial heed of each other's words. As you say, "when dealing with your own kind, it is noble to speak clearly, simply and directly...like a man". One will tell the other if they are uncertain about one's future actions, using words like, "may", "might", "possibly", "consider". When one believes his intentions meet a standard of certainty, he'll simply say, "I will".

Should one wish to make it clear to the other that one places his honor on doing nearly whatever it takes to complete a planned action, he might make a pledge so that the other will have little doubt how he should adjust his plans. So while one shouldn't use a pledge to basely convince others of something, all pledges still seem to be fundamentally a form of convincing.

A pledge is a way to self-motivate and to hold yourself accountable before other.
Using and abusing are related.

I think it means: do not say it, do it.
Do not promise it, be it.

In time you will not have to pledge to your own kind. They will know that you saying you will do something is a pledge.

Stuart. wrote:

It seems that when a person is mature to his circumstances he has lived the type fully integrated; to have had time for thought precludes maturity.

It looks like you're saying that one cannot think while going through maturity because lack of development and its constraint on time prevents thought. And that is why you go on to ask...

Stuart. wrote:

To be self-thought and mature while still under forty, how is this possible?

In the previous statement, you're implying, based on "to have had time for thought" meaning, you don't have time for thought while maturing because if you did, it would negate maturity. In this next line (your question), if one is already mature, then it is a given that self-thinking is possible. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible here? Am I seeing this correctly?

Kovacs wrote:

Is it a matter of communication coupled with introspection? When one is honest with X, usually it is another person.   Here one is to be honest with oneself, hence I moved to communication.

Yes, communication with oneself.

Quote :

Honesty is often seen as relaying correct information - about what one thinks and feels.   So communicating this stuff to oneself. Or being willing to actually experience what is there, presumably: to notice it, accept that it currently is there, whatever it is.

One can be dishonest out of cowardice or stupidity. Often stupidity is largely due to cowardice.

Quote :

So I mention introspection.   Is it only through introspection one finds out what is there and is then honest with the fruits of this introspection?

One discovers self by discovering what one is not - the outside world.

Quote :

How does one deal with the incredible fallibility of introspection? (I did notice your 'as honest as possible')

It's fallible due to stupidity and/or cowardice. So one may try to decrease those attributes so that then one's predictions become probable.

Quote :

Not the same issue as this is around the issue of the nature of things one can contact via introspection - the flitting thoughts and feelings that are egodystonic, for example.   As long as they are 'inside' cut off from expression, can one see them as they are?   These latter issues are what led me to ask about introspection and if there are other methods involved in this honest self-relation. If you, Stuart, have other methods. And I am the one who used the word introspection. Perhaps that was off. Let me know.

I don't know what would be inside and entirely cut off from introspection, mentally or physically. Even our bone marrow manifests itself in that our health suffers with a lack of it.

Stuart wrote:

Kovacs wrote:

To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?

Doubtlessly, there's a connection, but I can't say I'm overly aware of the process. Personally, after the long process of claiming to have very few values, which took place during the early days you knew me on the other forum, I'm still trying to develop significant amount of values, which while likely highly influenced by those here, I can actually say are entirely my own.

To add to that response, a person in general who has relatively obtained a large degree of self-knowledge, I believe wouldn't let his values affect to too much of an extent what he sees in himself. He largely creates his values based on what he sees in himself.

This is something I didn't mention in the above essay. The noble way to make values/standards is to aligns one's values with one's past (as one inherited it from one's ancestors and as it's manifested in one's present state). This is the way to express gratitude for one's ancestors' struggles and it'll also create a solid basis for values/standards that can therefor lead to more decisiveness and likely more power.

Kovacs wrote:

Or to put it another way: we have great creativity in the creation of an internal judge.   We need not have morals in any conventional sense, certainly without a deity or religion it is still possible to find on the top, so to speak, a process that inhibits the ability to even notice portions of the self, let alone realize what they actually are as they dart into the spotlight and dart away again.  How does not know how small the little 'i' is that has taken over?   Thinking, I suppose, in gurdjieffian metaphors.

Like I said it's a matter of intelligence and courage.

In the later part of A Genealogy of Morals N. says the sick seek what makes them sick, Satyr says those with no substance seek to drain those with substance. The former makes sense, in that "misery loves company", and perhaps, once at a state so far gone, a sick person's will to power would switch from that seeking health so that he may better expand upon himself in health, to being a will to sickness, so that he may better expand upon his himself as a sick person.

The latter makes sense in that I observe it as a common occurrence. But, I don't know if the later relates to the feminine seeking the masculine, nor how excess femininity, in males, relates to one who's sick or one's who lacking substance, or how sickness and lack of substance relate to each other.

Stuart- wrote:

the sick seek what makes them sick,

Haven't read that book but at first glance it could mean that when you are sick you want to find out about your sickness and so you look for what makes you sick; so 'seeking' in that sense.

Now, here is an observation I've made about myself when reading (listening) to Nietzsche's TSZ, some passages repeatedly - The first kind of interpretation I have for many things he says are actually more complicated, not in your face obvious;
but then,
after listening to it many times,
some very simple, obvious ways of interpreting it come up.
Usually I'd expect it to be the other way around but maybe it's because I've become blind to some obvious interpretations/way of understanding.

I met someone online who seems to have a very noble, but simple, outlook on life and reality. He looks for quality in himself and those he surrounds himself with, advocates no political ideologies, nor has any outspoken views on what's best for the human species in general. He has simple goals, which include understanding as much of himself and reality as possible. That's basically all I know of him from the conversation I've had. I know nothing about how he managed to be in a state apparently free from the diseases of modernity. It seems he never had to struggle much against them, but was either just relatively unexposed or naturally immune to them. I don't know of any conflict and suffering, in general, that he's had in his life, and he neither speaks of academic matters nor does he seem to have much to say on philosophical, societal or physiological subjects, in general.

I question whether I have a character to match his. But, whatever character I have it came from an entirely different approach. I long thought about, and later read much about very abstract idea, as a part of my general discontent. And then while direct influence by those of high character here on this forum is largely responsible for any character that I have, it wouldn't have been possible for me to accept such influence had I not first consolidated so many of the abstract issues that had been confusing me.

What use would it be to introduce such a person to all these philosophical ideas, when often their purpose is to help one obtain the type of character that he already has, when he may simply be distracted by them as if to compel him to become a scholar rather than to simply live a more simple respectable life? Or to speak of the more pressing current events to him as if to try to give him a sense of purpose that might override the moderate, respectably light, sense of purpose he already has?

Much is spoken here of a duty to speak the truth, and to seek those who are diseased by modernism but have the potential to overcome it. Basically, to help those with potential to over come debilitating psychological effects of modernism and to help those who're delusional come to a better understanding of reality. But I don't know what duty one might have towards one who's opinions are so modest that, while perhaps failing to notice how delusional and diseased so many people are, they contain nothing that can be taken as delusional, and has no debilitation psychological effects from modernism.

Is there an end to self-knowledge or perfecting?

And if all the ideas here could be traced back to some past thinker or the other, does it mean we don't add our own expressions or stop writing at all, since everything said has already been said before?
I dont mean simple world-juggling with alternate synonyms to make it look like it were something new,,, but a 'dasein' that is peculiarly your own and weaving that with and into and out through those thinkers with your mode of being… is lending a novelty.

A mind that is already aware of the modern dis/ease, would impose on itself new tasks, new problems, raise new questions, find more efficient solutions, put forth its taste in new parameters and hierarchies that might be contestable…, testing itself again and again...  what else is growth?

No, this is an endless ocean.

One knows himself by what he's not, but one who defines himself by what he's not has yet to go so far as to know himself, being still so focused on what he's not. In fact maybe what happens is while trying to know himself by what he's not he becomes fixated on what he's not, and begins to resemble it.

In many cases one does find himself by seeking what he's not, but by failing, and instead seeing what he is; here his initial illusion of who he was was the very discovery of the thing he wasn't; that which allowed him to differentiate himself from it. For example, one delusionally believes he's overcome religion. This delusion of being one over religion is his actual first sight, in this context, of who he's not. Now while consciously identifying as what he delusionally thinks he's not, he has allowed himself to unconsciously see who he is.