Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.
Satyr is an excellent contradiction.
On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.
This simply doesn't work. It doesn't do much for consistency.
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.
I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.
Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.
Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.
I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.
Authority= Artifice Chaos=The original balance of nature.
Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
Last edited by LaughingMan on Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:02 am; edited 4 times in total
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.
Satyr is an excellent contradiction.
On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.
This simply doesn't work. It doesn't do much for consistency.
You're either one or the other.
Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.
Satyr is an excellent contradiction.
On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.
This simply doesn't work. It doesn't do much for consistency.
You're either one or the other.
Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?
I'm apolitical. I'm an individualist. Collective aspirations don't interest me unless it is something that I can gain from.
I survive in this world in my daily activities because of necessity.
I simply do what I have to in order to get by.
If however I was given the option to destroy this entire modern existence I would do it within seconds without the slightest hesitance.
...well that about does it for me, I'm through discussing Satyr and Lyssa's philosophy, or anyone else's for that matter, from a relatively neutral perspective, which is not to say there was nothing of me in anything I wrote, there was, but I'm holding back. If I post anything more on this forum, or anywhere else, it's going to be 100% me and my perspective, and anti-anything that dv8s from me and my perspective. In any case, I had fun, I think I understand Satyr's philosophy as good or better than anyone on this forum, other than the goat himself of course, and I appreciate it.. but it's not my own.
...on 2nd thought, I thought I was partly holding back some fundamental opposition to Satyr's thought, but... upon further in introspection, now I'm not so sure. I think I agree with most of it, it's more the details than anything else. I mean what's not to like, know thyself, nothing in excess? Aren't those pretty much givens? I've got some more thinking to, but...
I feel more a little more sober than usual, I feel like I'm sobering up, I dunno...
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.
I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.
Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.
Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.
I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.
Authority= Artifice Chaos=The original balance of nature.
Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.
Although Satyr has his political beliefs, much of his philosophy is devoid of politics and idealism, no? Isn't his message primarily about adapting and making do, without conforming necessarily, the way many of us do? Just as I live in society, but I participate on my terms, when I think it's in my best interests to do so. I do not have to buy/sell this or that thing. I try to use society as much as I can, when it benefits me and what I cherish, without being used by it, or being used by it, relatively little.
Satyr is an excellent contradiction.
On the one hand he wants to be very political in how he carries things out philosophically but interestingly enough wants to enjoy the benefits of being nonpolitical simultaneously.
This simply doesn't work. It doesn't do much for consistency.
You're either one or the other.
Are you yourself not both, but of a different sort? You have your dreams of Mad Max, and such, but do you not also live in the here/now, and have aspirations for the here/now (didn't you say you were thinking of becoming an electrician), or the soon to be? Can philosophy not have a bearing on the hear/now?
I'm apolitical. I'm an individualist. Collective aspirations don't interest me unless it is something that I can gain from.
I survive in this world in my daily activities because of necessity.
I simply do what I have to in order to get by.
If however I was given the option to destroy this entire modern existence I would do it within seconds without the slightest hesitance.
I'm the same way, except for that last part.
I'm just going to let the world do what it does, and respond in kind.
Carve out my own niche, perhaps, my own little oasis.
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.
I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.
Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.
Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.
I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.
Authority= Artifice Chaos=The original balance of nature.
Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.
Know thyself... it's been tough, I've had a love/hate relationship with myself for the past few years, but in the main, I think, I have chosen to stare into that abyss, rather than look away from it, I'm not sure why. I guess I'm just curious, and I pride myself on being strong, in tune with reality. I have strengths and weaknesses, I'm an organic person. Knowing the world has been easier than knowing myself, it's so much easier to perceive the flaw, in otherness.
Nothing in excess... I couldn't agree more, this has been my philosophy for the bulk of my life, long before I came here. My problem has generally been deficiency, rather than excess, except when it comes to thinking. If I could get behind any principle, it would be this one.
Divergense, you are like me in the sense that you can see all the colors of the spectrum. Once you see all the difference of perspectives, living life "normally" is a redundancy.
Joker,
I used to believe that authority over others was profane. But I slowly realize now, especially with females, that people abhor self responsibility, independence, and individuality. Most people cannot live alone, and the thought of being alone, scares the shit out of them. Consider a beautiful woman, or even an average looking one, she will live her life full of constant sexual attention from men. She will never be deprived of sexual attractions.
The male and female difference, obviously proves that authority is not the same for everybody.
Females despise authority, and want to destroy it. Because females don't want to be responsible for themselves, and their mistakes. A female's privilege is guarded by an eternal, systemic, innocence.
Noble types tend to be male, not female. Males are leaders, meaning that authority comes naturally to a leader. An exemplary human cannot help but stand out above or apart from the rest.
And the "apart" is the essence of Joker, or Batman, archetype. Joker and Batman both want to, and do, stand apart from everybody else. It doesn't have to be intentional.
It should be stated up front that the obvious irony here is we have two males arguing over who has the better superhero AND one of these two is saying the other one is a boy man. I say superhero or super anti-hero really, this being obvious with Joker and given the middle brow nature of Silence of the Lambs and the comic book features in the movie itself – that prison is nicely D.C. comic land – also true for Lector. That two males have locked onto and have interwoven their personalities with these kinds of characters is adolescent. And consistent with his choice joker is probably more likely to admit this element of his temperament than Satyr. The latter sharing with his superhero a centering on pretense, form denying content. I am not that. That is not me.
As an aside Satyr may justify – and has in a number of ways in the past – his rudeness – mentioned in my previous post – but Lector is simply not rude. He doesn’t simply dislike what he considers rudeness in others but avoids the hypocrisy of barfing up childish playground stuff on other people as well. And then, Lector would likely kill Saytr for how he sometimes speaks to women. Satyr does not have the option of tossing his sperm on them, but he comes as close as he can via the internet. If you have an ideal and lord it over others and get off on thinking this is me, it’s a good idea to actually investigate how the ideal would react to you. If one can do this honestly it cuts through a lot of BS. Clearly this is the before state here.
Not that Laughing man would fare better with Joker. Joker would use Laughing man. Secret a bomb on him, tell him to pickpocket some official and while Laughing man was reaching into the official’s pocket…boom. His earnestness would be an opportunity for joker and nothing more.
So let’s move from the choice, since it is not a choice one needs to make, between admiring one or the other of these fictional characters. One has been personally damaged. This same one has the temperament and desires that do not fit with normal society. The damage and temperament issues are so deep that Joker does not have the bourgeois fit in with the Jones option that Lector manages for some portion of his life. Joker cannot fake, because of temperament and also because of the particular damage he went through – rather than Lector’s witnessing atrocity. So his reaction is to be an avatar for Shiva. Lector is necessarily not political. He can, by virtue of a weaker set of interpersonal passions, control himself, put on a mask, fit in, get by in normal society –at least for a while. He also gets off, literally, on humans in situ. He does not want a change in society. He likes to suck on them in place, in their niches. Clarice IN her life. You can see the cost of being in the presence of Lector’s vamparitic curiousity in those prison scenes. This is not an exchange of information. Vital essence is exchanged for information. Just as the local Satyr needs the process of deciding quickly what box someone is in – thus relaxing his domination/submission fears – and then getting off on his definition of the other –which has an actual exchange of energy underneath it, this why most of the people who stay near Satyr will always immediately feed him this energy by bowing down up front, since it feels better to give this energy than have it sucked. (their protests of independence notwithstanding) Nothing to be smug about here, unless fans of Lector want to look down on Joker from a tabula rasa assumption about the human organism. Each is striving for what they want given what they can control and what they cannot control. Lector, the obvious hedonist, ironic that, keeping his radical split from society secret as long as he can. This allows him to pursue his pleasures – so dangerous they put him, in the end, in the position Joker chooses from the beginning. Lector the typical Victorian with a double life. The strictly controlled façade, but instead of some eccentric hobby or an affair with the pastor’s wife or homosexuality, he eats people he kills. He is split, pleased with the split, proud of conquering himself, disdainful of others who do not worship the split or cannot make such a radical split in themselves and this very disdain is the vampire in him (them). Victorians need some kind of boor or barbarian to look down on. Victorianism is a narcissism that needs to be constantly fed. The craving to no longer lead a double life is seen in the need to have a relation with those whose passions are on their sleeves. But the unification never comes because their disdain is habit. It is all about I am not them, so I am great. A return to the scene of the crime they committed against themselves. Not wanting to feel the cost of their own self-disdain, they reenact it with others who are more unified selves.
Laughing man and Satyr and their superheroes also split over Romantic versus Classic lines. The classicist thinking he is not a hedonist because of the control. He sips his hedonism, but it is hedonism. Joker, because he does not worship a split in the self, is more himself and would find Lector in need of unification, like everyone else. He sees the Joker in Lector and the lie. Lector would accurately see the hopelessness and lack of self care in Joker. Neither one creates very much. They both create ideals, one where the Joker in everyone is now on the surface, the other precisely the kinds of empty forms created by all Victorian/effete overcultures. We will not see a symphony, novel, painting, scientific discovery come out of any real life Satyr. Joker or at least LM has accepted this about himself – though amazingly our real life Joker, yes, laughing man, has an actual gift for prose, but not one suited to argument, but well suited to novels – while Satyr pretends he wouldn’t really deep down want to actually create something since this would mean facing his own sense of being a failure. I create ideals. LOL.
The two humans likely have very parallel temperaments and experiences trends that there heroes have. Satyr can fit in and bullshit much better than Joker can. Joker can’t hide the knife scar. If Satyr wants to feel smug about this, well that just fits with the temperament he has and is one of the weaknesses of his own character type.
In school, Laughing man types often get diagnoses like ADHD, because schools and petty administrators have to think of kids sitting in rows not moving and speaking except when called on as normal, so anyone not thriving in that situation is abnormal. What a joke. (one thing both Satyr and LM would be pleased by is the coming death of the prison administrator at Lector's hand, though for different reasons) Sadly Satyr who thrives much more than Laughing man does in the parallel adult society sees himself as superior. Laughing man would have thrived, or done better at least, in schooling that was more apprentice type scenarios, that involved bodies in motion and some outlet for his aggression. Once these were common, from that base he might well have been able to explore more intellectual ends in his own way. Being less able to lie and also politically less pleased with a double life than Lector or Satyr, he is moved to the periphery. He is likely though partially compensated for this in that he embodies himself more clearly. He has not given up, while Lector conquered himself FOR society, of course Satyr will see this as simply being a better chess player than Joker. Not wanting to look at the damage done by being his own jailer and self murderer.
Now my focus could lead a reader, or readers here given their habits, to a shallow conclusion that I think Joker is better or even Laughing man is better. Hardly. In context, an environment with asslickers for one, who are thus committed to siding against the other, there is less need to point out the problems of Joker/LM. This will come on its own.
Another aside: Laughing man is of course younger. Hard to say where the boy man will be when he reaches Satyr’s age. If he does. And that is a real issue. Will he reach that age? Will he see the end of the decade, even?
Write, boy, write. And not screeds about the end of the world. Not that there is anything wrong with those. But other people do that just fine and your talent lies elsewhere. Write fiction based on what you know. Writing fiction and being an angry, bitter misanthrope go together rosily. You might even end up not needing to ever work at McDonald’s or sleep over a vent again.
While I do like some conversations concerning Jungian Archetypes and fictional cases of alter egos sometimes also a movie is just a fucking movie. Nothing else guys.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A superhero is an accentuation of some basic ideals.
Hannibal is not verbally aggressive because he KILLS!!!! He expunges, from the face of the earth, what assaults his senses; what goes against his ideals; what insults his sense of self. Hannibal kills those who insult his aesthetics. This contributes to his inner calm. He need not tolerate the rude, or the base.
All his victims are well-adjusted, "healthy" members of society, but corrupt, vulgar in ways Hannibal is not... Hannibal pretends to preserve himself; they pretend because the pretense is the only self they know. You must become corrupted to succeed in the world of men; you must buy into the lie to successfully sell it. Every billionaire alive has manipulated, exploited, stolen, used others, and every single one has a justification and a benevolent reason he did so.
In "real life" one would not be able to justify the risks associated with what the movie character can get away with. Only a sociopath would do so. There are Hannibals all around us, and in a world where the act is prohibited, the word must fill in.
But what is more ridiculous than debating about "superheros" - if that is all that we are doing - is a "man" who is obsessed with psychoanalyzing Satyr, leaving his ideas aside? An obsession with the man behind the logos - in a medium where only the logos applies. A Dr. Chilton type.
The desperation of a arrogant mind, so simple that it tries to make sense of what it cannot fully comprehend except as a theoretical cartoon-figure. He can only understand using medical textbooks he's memorized all the lingo in.
A secret fascination with what intimidates it, to the point where he must reduce it to a level he can comprehend, and deal with it. It sees in this "creature," a "monster" he wants to dissect, using his formulaic methods, to make a name for himself. Not well-adjusted, successful, and "healthy", as he is. First step, dislodge the other from its pedestal by changing the word "monster" to "cartoon". The former is too flattering.
As an institutional "expert" he fits the role of the one who diagnoses what goes against the herd's best interests; what might disturb its slumber, or stress the cows to a level where it affects milk production.
He fits his role perfectly, and is compensated handsomely for it. A "healer" of divergence from the norm - a uniformist.
The Dr. Chiltons study what they are told they must - to explain why they diverge from the norm. They would never think of studying the norm itself, to see what traumas, what anxieties, what 'not so healthy' motives underlie its manifestations.
He sees pretenses in the different, but not amongst the cows, where he finds himself. The "hello how are yous" the fake smiles, the dress to hide imperfections and to cultivate pretend uniqueness, the perfumed, trained, behaviors of civility that keep the production lines moving...these he considers "honest and healthy." He sees "trauma" beneath everything that contradicts his "good life", but not in the dead-eyes of those he knows are too shallow and simple to cause any trouble for him. He enjoys those - they make him feel at ease. They comfort him with their predictable shallowness, while he tells himself he likes change (calling it progress). He sees an underlying "fear" in everything that refuses to lower itself to his comfortable norms, but never in the norms themselves. Homophobia, racism, sexism, all fear-based, but not the closing of the senses to their reality - there, in that blind acceptance of whatever is considered "truth," he sees no fears, he finds no pretenses.
Because if he would, he might see them in himself.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Life is agon: struggle, suffering. A stress upon the organism stress= suffering/pain.
This, would be considered a level of "trauma." Attrition on the ordering/becoming of the organism.
In sheltering environments this stress never exceeds the endurable (the median level of endurance) - and only becomes apparent in the adolescent stage, when the individual realizes that he will not be able to remain honest and true to his nature, as he could as a child. It is the weening stage, when the individual is pushed to deal with the world on his own. This is the first "traumatic" psychological event, usually accompanied by a rebelliousness (anger, sadness), spurred on by hormonal changes which are going on at the same time. It's the stage where the individual realizes what parts of himself he will be able to express, and which parts he will have to repress. A successful self-repression produces the "normal" type - the repressed parts expressing themselves subconsciously, through dreams, sexual fantasies, neurosis. The less complex a mind is, the less he has to repress. The"trauma" is lower. A simple mind will adjust much more easily, as there will be very little about him to adjust in this way. Birds, having bird-brains, can live for years in a tiny cage.
In physical trauma, if death does not follow, there's scarring. A thickening of the tissue; an increased numbness due to destroyed or buried nerves. Trauma indicates an experience survived - it is worn with pride, unless one is born and raised as a spoiled, pampered, brat, trying to preserve that pristine skin softness of the child.
Without trauma, on some level, there is no growth. To build a muscle you must stress it, traumatize it, tear it, so that when it heals it heals bigger, stronger, thicker.
We live in an age where that youthful, soft, smooth skin, lacking scars, is worshiped. An age where controlled, artificially induced stresses are preferred. This indicates how we cope with psychological stresses.
------------
A man-child is not a man who involves himself in childish things, but one that involves himself in childish things in childish ways.
There would be no issue of dealing with imbeciles in a world where protections were absent - there would be no need for debate and endless conversations over who deserves what, and what "justice" means. Only in an environment where weakness is preserved and allowed to propagate - valued as a virtue because it is malleable - would there be a need to justify why this is "good", and only then would there be a need to give the products of this sheltering reasons to feel proud of what they are - values to find self-esteem in, new definitions to make them "normal", where the term is flattering. A mind what has not faces traumatic events, never grows up. It doesn't have to. those that do face traumatic events, not all deal with them in the same way.
Courage is not the absence of fear, it is a result of how one deals with it. A protected mind, is not courageous when it has never faced death, or if it remains ignorant and naive. And those who do face fear, some run and some fight - fight/flight.
And so a child of divorced parents may turn out to be a criminal or become the president of the United States, and a child born and raised in harrowing condition of poverty, violence, death, may becomes fucked-up or may become brilliant.
To accuse anyone of fear, is stating the obvious; to ignore it in yourself, is disingenuous and hypocritical; to see fear in hate but not in love, is delusional; to use fear as an accusation, is naive. The adversity is the necessary ingredient for a do or die scenario to unfold - sheltering is an atrophying; stagnation founded no comfort, predictability, certainty.
Divergense, you are like me in the sense that you can see all the colors of the spectrum. Once you see all the difference of perspectives, living life "normally" is a redundancy.
I never wanted to be normal, in fact, throughout most of my life, I've reveled in my abnormality. There's just one or two areas, I'm not proud of. Mainly, I wish I didn't have intrusive thought disorder (I have a peculiar brand of this disorder), which has interfered in many areas of my life. It's also made it even more difficult for me to ignore negativity in the world, others, and myself. I too have spectrum thinking, and being here, has only nourished it I think. In addition to my ITD, my problem has been idealism, not the worlds idealism, but my own. This is something I'm in the process of remedying. There's nothing wrong with striving per say, but striving to strive, or programming your striving like a robot, was my problem. All this is very complicated, and I don't want to get into it here, but yeah, I see the flaws and holes in everything too, and that's part of the reason I didn't buy into the consumerism, and all that, from a young age. I counted the cost, the negatives, and realized the carrots weren't with the sticks. Now what to do, but create your own world and your own values, despite whatever popular culture is up to.
Unlike most, my problem has been deficiency, rather than excess, but, maybe it's not so much of a problem, after all.
Last edited by Divergense on Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Diver, I'm all about the anti thesis of authority.
I believe everybody should have total independence in their lives for better or for worse.
Unlike people who idolize aristocracies I have no desire to assert myself over large groups of people or individuals. I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power over others and those that do should be overthrowed.
Also, my philosophy is all about the supremacy of nature over humanity.
I seek to destroy artifice bringing the return of nature's supremacy.
Authority= Artifice Chaos=The original balance of nature.
Behind all that destruction of my philosophy there is a primary initiative at play.
I think we just gotta make do, with whatever is, that's my take.
Play the hand we're dealt.
Play the hand we're dealt?
I find that intolerable.
I don't think playing the hand we're dealt and conforming are necessarily the same things, Joker.
He wants to create new values and minimize nihilism by taming it.
He wants to domesticate nihilism.
I on the other hand revel in nihilism where I am perfectly content with it.
I want to unleash nihilism on the rest of the world.
While he is disgusted with modernity he is content existing within it feeding on those that exist within its confines. I on the other hand view modernity as a mockery of nature and existence where if it was up to me I would destroy it all. I am not content existing or living within its confines.
Satyr believes in the concept of noble elitism as a sort of perception that there are a group of chosen individuals out there to lead a collective social hierarchy or pyramid.
I believe the entire social hierarchy or pyramid to be a complete absurd joke which is something else I wish to destroy. Just another mockery of nature.
Satyr is content with blending in with institutional authority in order to facilitate his own desires and to also assert his will. I on the other hand am anti authority where I refuse to blend in within its confines.
If Satyr disagrees with any of these assertions of mine he can feel free to correct me here which I'm sure he will eventually.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37293 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Nice watching you identify yourself in relation to moi.
LaughingStock wrote:
He wants to create new values and minimize nihilism by taming it.
No. My values are old and forgotten. I want to preserve them through this Dark Age.
LaughingStock wrote:
He wants to domesticate nihilism.
Um, o, reatard, nihilism IS a method of domestication, I want to free those who can from it - at least spiritually/intellectually. I am an nihilist of nihilism. I affirm existence.
LaughingStock wrote:
I on the other hand revel in nihilism where I am perfectly content with it.
No, you are a nihilist proper. You simply want to die, but your ego is such that you don't want to leave anyone behind to enjoy living.
LaughingStock wrote:
I want to unleash nihilism on the rest of the world.
You see the hypocrisy of "positive" nihilism as it is used in modern times to control the masses and to make them feel good about who they are - you are a pure nihilist. Your self-hatred is honest. You want to destroy it all; they, want to destroy nature/past, and dream of a world where it is all erased: brainwashing.
But, now you are beginning to sound more like them. You might be a disillusioned member of the herd. You only want to erase (nullify) more than they do.
LaughingStock wrote:
While he is disgusted with modernity he is content existing within it feeding on those that exist within its confines. I on the other hand view modernity as a mockery of nature and existence where if it was up to me I would destroy it all. I am not content existing or living within its confines.
You associate yourself with the term "human", and I've re-evaluated it. I've defined it. Modernity wants to erase the past/nature, to forget it (partial amnesia), I want to preserve it, recall it. Modernity does this by turning everything into a noetic construct, an idea, a memetic code. I accept this method, because I know memes come from genes - what the moderns what to denounce as non-applicable to create their ideal world. By accepting their methods I show how hypocritical it is. Moderns want to dismiss genes from the foundation of meme; I want to reaffirm them.
LaughingStock wrote:
Satyr believes in the concept of noble elitism as a sort of perception that there are a group of chosen individuals out there to lead a collective social hierarchy or pyramid.
No, retard...nobody is "chosen" but selected, naturally. Minds are born with a potential that may, or may not reach its fullest potential. I want to find those with that potential and cultivate free it from its modern confines. Every group has a hierarchy. Look at how desperately you tried to create a group with yourself on the top.
But this group is OUTSIDE the hierarchies you want to level down, because you are still stuck in their constructs. Our hierarchies have little to do with those you despise...and so we do not identify or judge ourselves according to them. You still do. It's why you remain angry, dreaming of destruction. And look at how you tool "elite" to mean what you've been brainwashed into thinking of elite as: wealth, political power, privilege, luxury, money, and so on. You cannot free your self-esteem from their value standards and so you can only hope to destroy them, to escape their standards - you become resentful. We don't because we are ALREADY outside their standards. We study them because we are forced to live amongst them, and to survive using their standards, without being absorbed by them. Get it, you imbecile?!
It's why when they call me uncivil, vulgar, base, primitive, i am not touched. their value judgments relate to their adopted, trained into them, and comforting, value standards. In fact, the more "negatively" they think of me, the more I am sure I am on the right path, particularly when they have NOTHING to offer to contradict my positions except declarative statements, victory dances, sexual innuendos, girly gossip talk, and half-asses psychological assessments.
LaughingStock wrote:
I believe the entire social hierarchy or pyramid to be a complete absurd joke which is something else I wish to destroy. Just another mockery of nature.
And yet, all around you, in nature, there are hierarchies. Amongst social species these are SOCIAL hierarchies.
Different value standards means different hierarchies. A tribe within a tribe, or a human tribe within a sea of Zombies and Vampires - the living dead.
LaughingStock wrote:
Satyr is content with blending in with institutional authority in order to facilitate his own desires and to also assert his will. I on the other hand am anti authority where I refuse to blend in within its confines.
No, retard. No matter how weak a cow is, in large numbers they are a threat to the wolf; no matter how strong a lion is, when confronted with a herd of angry water buffalo, it runs. Quantities drown qualities.
I cannot escape the world as I found it, but instead of becoming suicidal, in that hypocritical way of yours, I realize it's a matter of time. No frontiers, no way out. One must change his perspective. The jungle is replaced by urban environments; the herds change by appearing all human, but displaying their differences memetically. The human species dominates earth, but it is not uniform - it is striving to become uniform. In the process it is creating friction, fragmentation. Moderns have spiritualized identifiers, like "human", by selectively accepting parts of it and rejecting others: like male/female, or races. They've de-sexualized the identity "human" and then eroticized it, romanticized it. Hyper-masculinity is an indication of its disappearance.
Baudrillard, Jean wrote:
At the heart of pornography is sexuality haunted by its own disappearance.
We live in a hyper-sexualized "culture" because sexuality is disappearing. We live in a hyper-individualized culture because individuality is becoming uniform.
I accept their premises, but do not reject the genetic factor nor the sexual component - I hold onto the erotic/thymotic elements together. I then fragment their idealized idetifiers by returning them to their genetic foundations. I de-romanticize their romanticism. By doing so I expose the fear and pretenses they can only see in others. Within their world of uniforming ideals, that are supposed to blind us all to appearances, to the phenomenon, I discover an underlying world populated by all kinds of memetically defined creatures.
I am now in a different kind of environment; one seemingly uniform but not really. Herbivores/Carnivores/Omnivores replaced by psychological types - hunter/prey now conducted using words.
I blend into their hypocritical, pretentiousness, like Hannibal did. I do not buy into their lies, I manipulate them for my own ends. I do not relate to their bullshit, I pretend to. They believe in their own crap, I know when I am lying and when I am not.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
1. You and I have already discussed this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
2. In my opinion, I think your inference of Satyr is wrong, if by his 'nothing in excess', you mean the averaging of desires and living.
Take note, 'Nothing in Excess' was a Delphism given at a time of barbaric excess among the Greeks; exuberant heroism and unbridled passion was taking, selecting out the cream of the race disproportionate to the pace of conserving such heroes. Today's age is feminized, and its a different kind of barbarism which Satyr has identified as "hypermasculine displays", of being louder, vulgar, in-your-face-bigger, and the more thrilling life is sold as the "freest life", explored here in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Baudrillard wrote:
"…sense of futility that comes from doing anything merely to prove to yourself that you can do it: having a child, climbing a mountain, making some sexual conquest, committing suicide. The marathon is a form of demonstrative suicide, suicide as advertising: it is running to show you are capable of getting every last drop of energy out of yourself, to prove it… to prove what? That you are capable of finishing. Graffiti carry the same message. They simply say: I’m so-and-so and I exist! They are free publicity for existence. Do we continually have to prove to ourselves that we exist? A strange sign of weakness, harbinger of a new fanaticism for a faceless performance, endlessly self-evident." [America]
Satyr wrote:
"In previous times fighting over females was a way of ensuring one's genetic future. Today its more about unfocused instinct, fighting over a momentary release...which will be done with as soon as it is over. The culture of recycling and throwing away. One attains, uses, and then goes for a better model; look at the housing market. In the past a family lived in a house for generations, now one changes homes like they change cars. Each one is a symbol of their work, their risks...their social ascent. Continuity with the past is broken and re-broken, connecting always with the immediate...with the current. But with simpler minds, simpletons, like animals, fornication has no outcome. The need is immediate...what follows is unknown. If, like with humans, it is known, it may be undesirable, as the state of fornication with no obligation is a state of childishness: a ceaseless exploration of hedonism/materialism with no goal except more hedonism and materialism. Humans, even the more retarded, are still slightly above animals in awareness."
The Nothing in Excess is against this kind of barbaric hedonism.
3. Nothing in Excess, as in;
Satyr wrote:
"To eyes that have never seen, any light above darkness, would be excessive. Pain flowing through the nervous system, entering the central hub, like a knife blade. The brilliance of exiting the cave.
Who shall endure suck brilliance?
To eyes that have lived in the twilight any prolonged exposure to it would be excessive. It would tire, its mind would want to close itself off, to lower the lids, and find peace in darkness. Who can endure seeing for long?
Nothing in Excess, we are told. Μηδεν Αγαν! Who can exceed his own ability to cope, who can lift a mass that will break him?
Who comes to philosophy thinking he has the stamina to endure what will be revealed? Μηδεν Αγαν! Why not consider your own endurance and close your eyes before you are broken? Μηδεν Αγαν! Do not know more than you can deal with. Μηδεν Αγαν! Do not see more than your eyes can bear. Μηδεν Αγαν! Do not understand more than what you can psychologically endure.
Seek darkness, ignorance, mediocrity, and settle for it. Why do you come looking, if you doubt your own constitution? Would you drink in excess? Would you eat in excess? Would you work in excess?
Who are these children who think themselves worthy of seeing, or knowing, of understanding? Did you think thinking was an equal opportunity discipline? Do you go to the gym seeking the heaviest weight to lift? Do you consider your frame durable enough, the equal to those other monsters beside you? Do you envy them? Are you this "humble"?
Μηδεν Αγαν! Why do you despise the one who reminds you that you are not equal to the task?
Why? Because you've bought into the crap about parity in potentials. Your fragile ego will not let it go. You remind others of it - you tell them of their ego - and yet there you are, overestimating yourself before them.
Μηδεν Αγαν! What does this mean to you, poor child? Does it mean a median all are forced to live beneath?
Μηδεν Αγαν! in knowing yourself, the child shouts, thinking he has found a chink in the metal. A warning: Do not know yourself, nor me, excessively. The body has a limit, as does the mind. How does one determine this limit, and then seek balance?
γνῶθι σεαυτόν As much as you can endure, as much as possible, and then... μηδέν άγαν
How does one forget what one has never known? How does one return to being a child, when he's never been a lion, nor a camel?"
"In order to live lightly one must be discriminating...and unaffected by what is deemed inferior or useless, indifferent to the superfluous."
5. 'Balance', as in;
Satyr wrote:
[isze=12]"If we assume that entropy is increasing then we can visualize this as a current...a wave, flowing towards a uniform expanse where it will settle down in some state of undisturbed expanse of nearly stillness....an expanse of near-infinite, glass-like smoothness.
The wave reminds me of Evola's imagery and his "Ride the Wave" title. Balance is like a tightrope walker, using Nietzsche's metaphors...and like a surfer or a mountain-climber. The wave builds momentum as it approaches the shore...the level solidity of the static absolute.
What is balance then, when nothing is still? It is this titter-tottering on the wave's peak, riding the wave and as such remaining unchanged in relation to it, before one falls over and is swept away.
This momentary balance is what control is. The mastery of one's self in relation to unco0tnrollable liquidity...the constant adjustment to the chaos of the wave, by finding in its flow patterns of predictability which help the surfer adjust himself in relation to it.
This is the image of the "dancing star" which the chaos can give birth to. The beautiful, the sublime amidst the churning interactivity."[/size]
6. My Balance, as in;
The edge as the balancing nexus.
The edge is the true middle. Heraclitus says, the best harmony is the product of maximum dissonance, brought under a conrol. Max. eros/life/activity is when diverse things stand in their irreconciliable distinctiveness.
Quote :
"Xenophon also stresses the famous self-control of Socrates in relation to physical pleasures and indulgences.
"He was in the first place the most self-controlled of men in respect of his sexual and other appetites; then he was most tolerant of cold and heat and hardships of all kinds; and finally he had so trained himself to be moderate in his requirements that he was very easily satisfied with very slight possessions." (Mem.I.2)
On this account, Socrates could be living by Patañjali’s rules. The emphasis on the polarity "cold and heat” is interestingly like the formulation in the Indian tradition, where the commentator Vyasa, for example, explains tapas as “bearing the ‘pairs of opposites,’. .. as for example heat and cold…." [McEviley, The Shape of Ancient Thought]
Balance is not some place where things converge, compromise and approximate into some happy mean, into the mediocre, but that in-tense common point where everything flares up in, and asserts its true nature and cannot be other than what it is. There is max. self-assertion - self-affirmation or collapse. 0-100. Balance is not any luke-warm state, but the common edge that becomes the middle of many things; the cold-cutting-edge, where opposites co-exist as opposites:
Zupancic wrote:
"...a linking or a holding that maintains two things together at their extreme point: at the extreme point of their (in)commensurability, at the point where they can only just be perceived as two that are distinguised-yet-indistinguishable. ...This "not quite" is the minimal difference between two things, the exact measure or the shortest path between two things; the right measure is not to say that it is a kind of synthesis of the two, (or neutralization) or that the two find some kind of organic unity; It is the name of the point where they nearly coincide. That point or juncture where the sharpest tension is felt between such extremes that cannot be reconciled, inevitably has the structure of preserving value." [The Shortest Shadow]
Nietzsche wrote:
"In contrast to the animals, man has cultivated an abundance of contrary drives and impulses within himself: thanks to this synthesis, he is master of the earth.- Moralities are the expression of locally limited orders of rank in his multifarious world of drives, so man should not perish through their contradictions. Thus a drive as master, its opposite weakened, refined, as the impulse that provides the stimulus for the activity of the chief drive. The highest man would have the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured. Indeed, where the plant "man" shows himself strongest one finds instincts that conflict powerfully (e.g., in Shakespeare), but are controlled." [WTP,966]
Nietzsche wrote:
"The wisest man would be the one richest in contradictions."[WTP, 259]
Nietzsche wrote:
"It is only a question of strength: to have all the morbid traits of the century, but to balance them through a superabundant, recuperative strength. The strong man." [WTP, 1014]
Nietzsche wrote:
"That one should put one's life in danger, yielding to a generous feeling and under the impulse of a moment, that is of little value and does not even characterize one. Everyone is equally capable of that-and in this resolution, a criminal, a bandit, and a Corsican certainly excel decent people. A higher stage is: to overcome even this pressure within us and to perform a heroic act not on impulse-but coldly, raisonnable, without being overwhelmed by stormy feelings of pleasure- The same applies to compassion: it must first be habitually sifted by reason; otherwise it is just as dangerous as any other affect. Blind indulgence of an affect, totally regardless of whether it be a generous and compassionate or a hostile affect, is the cause of the greatest evils. Greatness of character does not consist in not possessing these affects--on the contrary, one possesses them to the highest degree-but in having them under control. And even that without any pleasure in this restraint, but merely because-..." [WTP, 928]
7.
Nietzsche wrote:
"What is noble?"'
-Care for the most external things, in so far as this care forms a boundary, keeps distant, guards against confusion.
-Apparent frivolity in word, dress, bearing, through which a stoic severity and self-constraint protects itself against all immodest inquisitiveness.
--Slowness of gesture, and of glance. There are not too many valuable things: and these come and wish to come of themselves to the valuable man. We do not easily admire.
-Endurance of poverty and want, also of sickness.
-Avoidance of petty honors and mistrust of all who praise readily: for whoever praises believes he understands what he praises: but to understand-Balzac, that typical man of ambition, has revealed it-'comprendre c' est egaler'.
-Our doubt as to the communicability of the heart goes deep; solitude not as chosen but as given.
-The conviction that one has duties only to one's equals, toward the others one acts as one thinks best: that justice can hoped for (unfortunately not counted on) only inter-pares.
-An ironic response to the "talented," the belief in a nobility by birth in moral matters too.
-Always to experience oneself as one who bestows honors, while there are not many fit to honor one.
-Always disguised: the higher the type, the more a man requires an incognito. If God existed, he would, merely on grounds of decency, be obliged to show himself to the world only as a man.
-The ability for otium, the unconditional conviction that although a craft in any sense does not dishonor, it certainly takes away nobility. No "industriousness" in the bourgeois sense, however well we may know how to honor and reward it, or like those insatiably cackling artists who act like hens, cackle and lay eggs and cackle again.
-We protect artists and poets and those who are masters in anything; but as natures that are of a higher kind than these, who have only the ability to do something, merely "productive men," we do not confound ourselves with them.
-Pleasure in forms; taking under protection everything formal, the conviction that politeness is one of the greatest virtues; mistrust for letting oneself go in any way, including all freedom of press and thought, because under them the spirit grows comfortable and doltish and relaxes its limbs.
-Delight in women, as in a perhaps smaller but more delicate and ethereal kind of creature. What joy to encounter creatures who have only dancing, foolishness, and finery in their heads! They have been the delight of every very tense and profound male soul whose life was weighed down with great responsibilities.
-Pleasure in princes and priests, because they preserve the belief in differences in human values even in the valuation of the past, at least symbolically and on the whole even actually.
-Ability to keep silent: but not a word about that in the presence of listeners.
-Endurance of protracted enmities: lack of easy reconcilability.
-Disgust for the demagogic, for the "enlightenment," for "being cozy,"" for plebeian familiarity.
-The collection of precious things, the needs of a high and fastidious soul; to desire to possess nothing in common. One's own books, one's own landscapes.
-We rebel against experiences, good and bad, and are slow to generalize. The individual case: how ironic we feel toward the individual case if it has the bad taste to pose as the rule!
-We love the naive and naive people, but as spectators and higher natures; we find Faust just as naive as his Gretchen.
-We esteem the good very little, as herd animals: we know that in the worst, most maliguant, hardest men a priceless golden drop of goodness is often concealed, that outweighs all mere benevolence of milk souls.
-We consider that a man of our kind is not refuted by his vices, nor by his follies. We know that we are hard to recognize, and that we have every reason to give ourselves foregrounds." [WTP, 943]
8.
Nietzsche wrote:
"What is noble?- That one constantly has to playa part. That one seeks situations in which one has constant need of poses. That one leaves happiness to the great majority: happiness as peace of soul, virtue, comfort, Anglo-angelic shopkeeperdom a la Spencer. That one instinctively seeks heavy responsibilities. That one knows how to make enemies everywhere, jf the worst comes to the worst even of oneself. That one constantly contradicts the great majority not through words but through deeds." [WTP, 944]
9.
Nietzsche wrote:
"To desire no praise: one does what profits one, or what gives one pleasure, or what one must." [WTP, 946]
10.
Nietzsche wrote:
"That one stakes one's life, one's health, one's honor, is the consequence of high spirits and an overflowing, prodigal will: not from love of man but because every great dauger challenges our curiosity about the degree of our strength and our courage." [WTP, 949]
11.
Nietzsche wrote:
"A great man-a man whom nature has constructed and invented in the grand style-what is he?
First: there is a long logic in all of his activity, hard to survey because of its length, and consequently misleading; he has the ability to extend his will across great stretches of his life and to despise and reject everything petty about him, including even the fairest, "divinest" things in the world.
Secondly: he is colder, harder, less hesitating, and without fear of "opinion"; he lacks the virtues that accompany respect and "respectability," and altogether everything that is part of the "virtue of the herd." If he cannot lead, he goes alone; then it can happen that he may snarl at some things he meets on his way.
Third: he wants no "sympathetic" heart, but servants, tools; in his intercourse with men he is always intent on making something out of them. He knows he is incommunicable: he finds it tasteless to be familiar; and when one thinks he is, he usually is not. When not speaking to himself, he wears a mask. He rather lies than tells the truth: it requires more spirit and will." There is a solitude within him that is inaccessible." [WTP, 962]
12.
Nietzsche wrote:
"The great man is necessarily a skeptic'· (which is not to say that he has to appear to be one), provided that greatness consists in this: to will something great and the means to it. Freedom from any kind of conviction is part of the strengh of his will. Thus it accords with that "englightened despotism" exercised by every great passion. Such a passion takes the intellect into its service; it has the courage even for unholy means; it removes scruples; it permits itself convictions, it even needs them, but it does not submit to them. The need for faith, for anything unconditional in Yes and No, is a proof of weakness; all weakness is weakness of will. The man of faith, the believer, is necessarily a small type of man. Hence "freedom of spirit," i.e., unbelief as an instincl [is a precondition of greatness.]." [WTP, 963]
13.
Nietzsche wrote:
"The great man feels his power over a people, his temporal] coincidence with a people or a millenium; this enlargement in his experience of himself as causa and voluntas is misunderstood "' "altruism"; it drives him to seek means of communication: all great men are inventive in such means. They want to embed themselves in great communities; they want to give a single form to the multifarious and disordered; chaos stimulates them.
Misunderstanding of love. There is a slavish love that submits and gives itself; that idealizes, and deceives itself-there is a divine love that despises and loves, and reshapes and elevates the beloved.
To gain that tremendous energy of greatness in order to shape the man of the future through breeding and, on the other hand, the annihilation of millions of failures, and not to perish of the suffering one creates, though nothing like it has ever existed!- [WTP, 964]
14.
Nietzsche wrote:
"extremely multifarious, yet firm and hard. Supple." [WTP, 976]
"Learning to see - accustoming the eye to rest, to patience, to letting things come to it; learning to defer judgement, to encircle and encompass the individual case on all sides". [TOI, Lack, 6]
Nietzsche wrote:
"The ability to have the pros and cons in one's power and to switch them on and off, so as to get to know how to utilise, for the advancement of knowledge, the difference in the Perspective ..." [GM, 3.12]
In other words,
Stoicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism, Libertarianism, Democracy, Conservatism, whatever it is,
1. One first learns to see. Encircle it from all sides, understand what its pros and cons are.
2. Approaches it as a tool and Knows when to turn it on/off according to the circumstance in order to further his ends.
Every path is only a means, and not an ends in itself.
The goal of a NE is always self-efficiency. I say this, as, 'Becoming "god-like", maximum-order is that state where you give more and more, by spending less and less'. The effort becoming effortless.
There is no ends as life is always a becoming. Health is always a state towards maximum order, maximum self-assertion, reshaping the world in your image.
Nietzsche wrote:
""I want this or that"; "I wish this or that were thus"; "I know that this or that is thus" - the degrees of strength: the man of will, the man of desire, the man of faith." [WTP, 920]
17.
Hedonism of whatever kind - homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, or whatever path that reduces life to a sensation of pleasure as the only good is a caricature of life, and such nihilistic decadence can never be a part of affirmative NE.
18.
Lastly, NE is not a "path" where one can ask "what can it do for me", etc. - as if one had a choice to BE something else... It is an innate sensibility, an inherited taste that is nurtured; its not even if you "have" it or not,,, you either Are it, or you are not. If you cannot feel that distinction, that urge makes you put distance between you and everything else [commonly and easily mistaken for modern stirnerite narcissism, "I am unique" in that superficial sense], then Nothing can teach you, and whatever else is acquired will only give you a semblance of nobility. --- like the many herd who come here to collect patches of wisdom in the belief information is knowing, or, mugging up values and mottos and points of views to appear noble or superior, will not betray the common-all-too-commonness of their spirit. Nurture can only nurture one's inherited nature. And the corollary: even if one comes from a NE line, the inheritance will amount to nothing if it isn't brought up to one's consciousness, giving birth to a second body from the merely inherited body.
Knowing Thyself is accepting and affirming your limitations and strengths and your station in life without ressentiment.
19.
Reg., Spartanize your needs, Romanize your desires - your needs are spartan only when your will is focussed. The emergence of an organism is from the clash of diverse needs brought under a dominant control; morality is nothing but the (power) expression of your rank-values. Again, an organism always tends to the path of least resistance. One needs to Romanize one's desires since expansion = space = growth and you cannot Real-ize your max. potential or possibility - i.e. your max. freedom of being, if the will to self-overcome doesn't seek greater and greater resistances like levers against which it can assert itself and grow. This freedom is a degree and never absolute.
As said before, heightened consciousness is the maximum dissonance you can incorporate under control into a harmony that resounds effortlessly - genius is a melody.
20.
Speaking generally, just because something collapsed like the Roman Empire or the Greek culture, and something will always collapse as decadence and attrition is part of the natural cycle of growth, doesn't mean, one remains conservative or does not will with the farthest and long-lasting vision in mind. Today, one has to do the best one can to preserve and strengthen The idea(l) that fights against levelling in whatever form it comes, and fights for the most golden overflowing health; the highest eros is the maximum degree and duration one can affirm life in/for its every aspect.
Quote : Noble elitism is the calm born of cold discrimination and bold self-awareness.
Everybody is discriminating and has awareness.
The degree of courage to be able to accept and the quality of the ideal born of that self-awareness separates.
A degree with enough distance splinters away as a type. The master is not just a degree of difference from the herd, but a difference of type, a separate link in the chain we call life.
LOL wrote:
Quote : A Heightened consciousness that has observed, analyzed, lived, experienced, vast spectrums of life, raises it to a knowledge and a far-sightedness that puts distance between it and all the rest.
These people are special snowflakes and cases that need to be enshrined on a kind of pedestal or throne, huh?
People who glamorize themselves that really do believe they are more special than everybody else. One word: Arrogance.
Nobody said "need to be enshrined"; a heightened consciousness already is separating, schism-introducing. Socrates didnt have to be in the limelight to rule; he shunned glamour and the market. So did N. Glamour and being in the light amongst many would be a Nausea to a heightened consciousness, knowing the distance that separates, but the necessity that binds it all...
LOL wrote:
Quote : This "distance" is born of honest "clarity" with oneself and the world.
This "distance" is not the same as the "distance" in the ladder of the corporate elites who have climbed via capital, and for whom maximizing capital is the sole end.
It's the same thing. Notice that all your old style type of aristocracy like whores have sold themselves into the modern oligarchy or plutocracy.
This is why your virtuous aristocrats no longer exist in the world, although one could say even further that in history they never really did exist to begin with.
And I already told you, heroes once attributed their power and accomplishments to Gods - this phenomenon is called Bicameralism. But in time, God was invoked as a surrogacy for absent power. The aristocrats you speak of were in name only, but this doesn't discount those aristocrats of spirit who did exist, and who recognize those values and ideals in themselves even today. NE is not corporate plutocracy.
LOL wrote:
Quote : A Noble elite is a creative individual. He "creates wealth"... in the form of capital-irreducible art, visions, philosophy, etc.
What you call commoners do all of these things also.
What you and Satyr are doing is nothing more than fetishizing certain individuals over all others. A sort of fixation.
Anyone can doodle and call it self-expression and individuality, but good art is the boldest interpretation of life opening perspectives that maximize the noblest possibilities of being. It is timeless and life-enriching over the vastest duration, because of some harmonious truth [a resilient order] it embodies. A noble art always embodies the logic of the grand style, a 'golden simplicity' (like how a pretty flower holds the fibonacci order within it...).
LOL wrote:
Quote : He distinguishes himself from the rest and the plutocratic elite because of his overflowing spirit - his abundant consciousness, which is his real wealth and power. His spirit is masculine and it Wants to distinguish itself and stand apart - not simply for the sake of standing apart (in which case you get the decadent hipsters and such specimens recently posted), but in the aspiration of seeking clarity about himself, in the aspiration of self-reliance to define his freedom.
A special snowflake separate from the rest supposedly.......
Yes, his superior consciousness gives him that distance. Pitying the lower ones is his danger. It is poisoning. And no, because he understands, life is interconnected, and to resent one, one possibility, is to have abolished that possibility of his being. Ressentiment against the lower ones is his danger. It is to be poisoned.
LOL wrote:
Quote : And the most heightened consciousness is born of knowing your past, and the chain that made you possible. - Which is what you confuse for "outdated living in the past", or "going back to stoneage aristocracy"...
Anybody can know their past by reading a history book.
You and Satyr want to revive an age that will never come back to this world.
Information is not Knowledge.
You are a knowledgeable person in the strict sense only when You are able to define what something is, and not let something "inform" you of what something is. Get it?
And nobody wants to revive any past as the past is not dead. It is always unfolding into the future. Idea(l)s do not die; they go dormant and have to be recalled into focus again. The most insightful will be the most far-seeing, and hence the most dominant.
LOL wrote:
Quote : This will be news to you that Nietzsche himself said, aristocracy is not just about being blue-eyed and blond-haired - which your best pal Neon advocates and funnily you don't take him to task for it,,, but an aristocracy also of the Spirit. - Know Thyself.
I despise authority and therefore by association also despise any form of aristocracy.
That's because you see yourself as a slave.
LOL wrote:
Quote : The Plutocratic Elites live to enjoy privileges and are a function of it, whereas the Noble Elite bestow privileges; they determine the highest value beyond pain/pleasure, from their strength and their deeds - the Plutocrats merely try to capitalize on it, parasitism. Privileges are a function of the Noble Elite, and not the other way.
You're trying so desperately to show difference between the two where there isn't any.
You can call Mo your best pal.
LOL wrote:
Nobility is entirely absent of this world much as morality is.
Laugh. Out. Loud.
Like I said, an idea(l) is never dead. Even one noble line, or one noble fragment is enough to stoke a flame in the deadest winters of nihilisms.
Even if no such fragment will exist, all you need is to look into your own microcosm, your inner universe with cold courage, and you can build a new flame.
I concur with Satyr. Anarchists are only one type of Xts.; for all your hatred against modern humanity, you are a humanist, a humanitarian.
"The slightest reflection of his own vulgarity is met with force. (and the irony that someone - a sometimes rude someone - who repeatedly points out that no one gets censored ((read:banned)) here admiring someone who bans people from existence for being rude should not be passed over)
Is it? Is it the reflection of his own vulgarity, or is it his humility about what is human?
Hannibal wrote:
"A discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me. Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude." [Hannibal, 2.12]
A courtesy is the minimum on what a civilization is built, on how unrelated elements interact to co-exist without eruption of violence, without regression into Hobbes' natural state of the savage. It is the basic line that separates the human from the animal [i dont mean the beast] but the savage animal. Thoughtfulness is the bare decency that Hannibal takes part in civilization.
What the other's insensitivity attempts to rob in ITS vulgarity, in its discourtesy, is this "humility" of being a man. In the insensitive, vulgar way it approaches Hannibal - either attempting to be over-familiar with him, or being unfamiliar with him, it tries to reduce him to its level. It is the vulgar herd that is dehumanized that tries to dehumanize Hannibal. Hannibal's cannibalism is a COURTESY he accords to the dehuman that Announces itself in the vulgar manner it does.
If one saw with pure eyes, Satyr too is one of the humblest human beings anyone with half a brain will recognize. In fact more humbler than Hannibal. Hannibal never gives a chance to the other - an opportunity for introspection, for self-reflection, but Satyr does. He stands AS the question ITSELF to question yourself.
Neither Hannibal, nor Satyr repress the other's depravity; they guard the critical liminality of how to remain human in a civilization.
Quote :
Joker wears his damage out front. It is real. It is who he is, a significant part of who he is. Lector pretends not to have damage. And his fan, here, imagines that it is not damage in his cannibalism and serial killing, but a more noble culling. But he does not cull the weak. They are weaker than him, but they are hardly the weak. Certain things offend him and he reacts compulsively to them.
Joker only caused murder and mayhem, which any lunatic with a gun can do. Not a big deal.
Hannibal changes lives quietly and profoundly. He opens self-awareness in the other subtly - like in Will or Clarice... He is a cultivator.
And what an amusing argument when adaptability can now be accused of deception.
Only in a culture of victimhood, where everyone is supposed to cry, whine, bitch, complain, make a reality show out of their sordid lives, Hannibal is graceful and carries himself with dignity. His wounds are his poison that invigorate him. He sublimates his ressentiment into higher aesthetics - cannibalism is turned into a People Reading;
"He is introduced as "the psychiatrist," and the name "Hannibal Lecter" literally connotes the "conqueror reader" (Hannibal the Conqueror plus Lecter, "reader" in Latin). This conqueror-reader conquers victims (like Starling) by reading them; he reads and so consumes victim and patient alike."
It is a snapshot of a man who has dominated his inner nature, his inner turmoil, without succumbing to it or being ruled by it. What a triumph it is when wounds are never forgotten;
"“In the vaults of our hearts and brains, danger waits. All the chambers are not lovely, light and high. There are holes in the floor of the mind, like those in a medieval dungeon floor - the stinking oubliettes, named for forgetting, bottle-shaped cells in solid rock with the trapdoor in the top. Nothing escapes from them quietly to ease us. A quake, some betrayal by our safeguards, and sparks of memory fire the noxious gases - things trapped for years fly free, ready to explode in pain and drive us to dangerous behavior...”
Joker and every anarchism is merely a more virulent extension of Xt. victimhood and martrydom. The morbidity of showing wounds, emotional sensationalism, hystericism, and such masochistic obscenties of the slanderers, underminers in the open is a weakness of the will; libertinism is a sickliness and a decadence. What is anarchism but socialist agitation, its brutality. Lecter is the very opposite of the Brutal. His struggle with his world is one on terms of self-composure - that is not pretentiousness.
His public mask does Not hide, it Reveals his Superiority, his dominance, his self-composure amidst the world and life at large.
"Hannibal controls “what he puts into his body”. He approaches mealtime methodologically. The meticulous planning and culinary preparation for his kill also highlight a particular ‘taste of luxury’ that frowns upon instant gratification and glorifying the macabre."
You, along with Freud, might as well call every cultured person repressed and pretentious; you might as well call, every superior adaptation an oppression and constraint from the freedom of being an animal.
Quote :
Of course it matters which of the many Lectors we are dealing with, but in the books he is the product of trauma, not even choosing his cannibalism but having it thrust upon him.
Might as well call Hannibal, Rousseau's noble savage, lol
How poor hannibal so pure and innocent turned cannibal because it was thrust on him...
What does Hannibal say?
Hannibal wrote:
"Nothing happened to me, Officer Starling. I happened. You can’t reduce me to a set of influences."
Quote :
In the movies we are supposed to see Lector as a genius, and this entails that his psychological works are works of genius. But in the actual film he produces little genius - not the film's fault.
His memory palace is the castle of his genius. Which the film doesn't show, but it describes.
And did you not see him burning every trace of his presence, throwing his materials into the fire - a criminal on the run is supposed to Display his genius? And doesn't he in the only way he can - the aesthetics of his murder and then how he creates art out of corpses...
His genius is in how he he turns death to life and makes come alive and rejuvenates that dead spot of society that threatened to regress him...
He restores order and society again.
He is an artist painting on the canvas on life and his every kill is a Stroke towards Higher Definition.
Quote :
In compensation for the utter out of controlness at the center of him. He cannot tolerate what he is and goes to incredible lengths to no have a mirror.
Wrong. He is not chaotic inside; but so self-aware, he longs for recognition from an equal, a friend, a mate. Someone pure, clean, honest.
Also,
Hannibal wrote:
"A low heart rate is a true indicator of one's capacity for violence." [Hannibal, 2.11]
shows the master-quality of his violence.
Quote :
It is not the moral mirrors that most people avoid, wanting not to notice their own dark sides, violence and terror. It is the compulsive, brutal, animal side of himself he cannot stand, though like a werewolf he cannot help but enjoy when it takes him over. And then he has to keep the desire at bay by regularly tossing entrecot - in his case well prepared human flesh -at the beast. And compulsive in the OCD sense. Joker is hardly an ideal, but he is more honest than Lector, who like any prissy upper class with lots of refinement and social beauracracy - Think Shogun Japan or any culture where the upper classes have white wigs and powdered faces - is presenting a denial of his own bestiality and lack of control in the front. He may not even believe it as much as his fan here does. Impossible to know.
Lector identifies neither with the fake upper class, nor with the lower dregs of society. His discrimination is solely on purity of intent, appreciating the human condition of the other;
Joker's anarchism and his dis-identification with anything is another element of his dis/ease, and his victimhood on puerile display -
Quote :
"As David Bennett recently observed, radical uncertainty about the material and social worlds we inhabit and our modes of political agency within them... is what the image-industry offers us...'. Nothing can be known for sure, and anything which is known can be known in a different way -- one way of knowing is as good, or as bad (and certainly as volatile and precarious) as any other. And thus there is little in the world which one could consider solid and reliable, nothing reminiscent of a tough canvas in which one could weave one's own life itinerary. Like everything else, the self-image splits into a collection of snapshots, each having to conjure up, carry and express its own meaning, more often than not without reference to other snapshots. Instead of constructing one's identity, gradually and patiently, as one builds a house -- through the slow accretion of ceilings, floors, rooms, connecting passages -- a series of `new beginnings', experimenting with instantly assembled yet easily dismantled shapes, painted one over the other; a palimpsest identity. This is the kind of identity which fits the world in which the art of forgetting is an asset no less, if no more, important than the art of memorizing, in which forgetting rather than learning is the condition of continuous fitness, in which ever new things and people enter and exit without much rhyme or reason the field of vision of the stationary camera of attention, and where the memory itself is like videotape, always ready to be wiped clean in order to admit new images, and boasting a life-long guarantee only thanks to that wondrous ability of endless self-effacing." [Zygmund Baumann, Post-modernity and its Discontents]
Quote :
As an aside Satyr may justify – and has in a number of ways in the past – his rudeness – mentioned in my previous post – but Lector is simply not rude. He doesn’t simply dislike what he considers rudeness in others but avoids the hypocrisy of barfing up childish playground stuff on other people as well. And then, Lector would likely kill Saytr for how he sometimes speaks to women. Satyr does not have the option of tossing his sperm on them, but he comes as close as he can via the internet. If you have an ideal and lord it over others and get off on thinking this is me, it’s a good idea to actually investigate how the ideal would react to you. If one can do this honestly it cuts through a lot of BS. Clearly this is the before state here.
Satyr is not rude; in fact more kinder, far more kinder than Hannibal.
Hannibal never forgets and even protracts his venegeance with a roller-deck for an opportuned moment to satisfy himself; Satyr is so forgiving.
Hannibal is only a fiction, but Satyr is real. And that's awesome. It is Satyr who identified a hero in Hannibal because it is his own soul that was heroic. We manage to see in others only what we are familiar with.
Rude to women, you say? Where are you Kovacs when women dont behave as women but insist on behaving like males and demons? How convenient you are never around here to voice your views when these females act with such ugliness?
I applaud Satyr on how principled and gentlemanly he is even when some of these females taunt, provoke with manly violence and try to reduce him to their animalistic and vampiric level. Never did he lose his composure to succumb to their level. Fact is Satyr adores females, and what man doesnt expect a woman to remain woman. The basics.
If Hannibal and Satyr met, a friendship would bloom?
-
Quote :
Just as the local Satyr needs the process of deciding quickly what box someone is in – thus relaxing his domination/submission fears – and then getting off on his definition of the other –which has an actual exchange of energy underneath it, this why most of the people who stay near Satyr will always immediately feed him this energy by bowing down up front, since it feels better to give this energy than have it sucked. (their protests of independence notwithstanding)
HA
Is it evil to be charismatic now?
Is it irksome to see he has followers and people who share his ideal and many who draw inspiration and courage and direction from him? He is everything a man should be like.
Is Ordering an evil? And is it only Satyr who does that, or do not ALL human beings box and categorize - the very feature of consciousness...
Quote :
"Purity is an ideal; a vision of the condition which needs yet to be created, or such as needs to be diligently protected against the genuine or imagined odds. Without such a vision, neither the concept of purity makes sense, nor the distinction between purity and impurity can be sensibly drawn. A forest, a mountain range, a meadow, an ocean (`nature' in general, as distinguished from culture, the human product) is neither pure nor impure -- that is, until it is spattered with the leftovers of a Sunday picnic or infused with the waste of chemical factories. Human intervention does not just soil nature and make it filthy; it introduces into nature the very distinction between purity and filth, it creates the very possibility of a given part of the natural world being `clean' or `dirty'.
Purity is a vision of things put in places different from those they would occupy if not prompted to move elsewhere, pushed, pulled or goaded; and it is a vision of order -- that is, of a situation in which each thing is in its rightful place and nowhere else. There is no way of thinking about purity without having an image of `order', without assigning to things their `rightful', `proper' places -- which happen to be such places as they would not fill `naturally', of their own accord. The opposite of `purity' -- the dirt, the filth, `polluting agents' -- are things `out of place'. It is not the intrinsic quality of things which makes them into `dirt', but solely their location; more precisely, their location in the order of things envisaged by the purity-seekers. Things which are `dirt' in one context may become pure just by being put in another place -- and vice versa. Beautifully polished, shining shoes become dirt when put on the dining table; returned to the shoe-stack, they recover their pristine purity. An omelette, a mouth-watering work of culinary art when on the dinner plate, becomes a nasty stain when dropped on the pillow.
There are, however, things for which the `right place' has not been reserved in any fragment of man-made order. They are `out of place' everywhere; that is, in all places for which the model of purity has been designed. The world of the purity-seekers is simply too small to accommodate them. It won't be enough to move them to another place; one needs to get rid of them once and for all -- to burn them out, poison them, shatter them in pieces, put them to the sword. More often than not these are mobile things, things that will not stick to their assigned place, that change places of their own accord. The trouble with such things is that they will cross boundaries whether invited to or not. They control their own location, and thus deride the purity-seekers' efforts to `put things in their place', and in the end lay bare the incurable fragility and shakiness of all placements. Cockroaches, flies, spiders or mice, which at any time may decide to share a home with its legal (human) residents without asking the owners' permission, are for that reason always, potentially, uninvited guests, and so cannot be incorporated into any imaginable scheme of purity.
The situation becomes yet more threatening and calls for yet more vigilance in the case of things which do not just move of their own accord, but do it moreover without drawing attention to themselves; they defy not just the model of purity, but the very effort of its protection, since without being aware of the invasion one does not know that the time of action has arrived, and one can be easily lulled into the illusion of security. Carpet mites, bacteria and viruses belong to that category of things from which nothing is safe, including the pursuit of safety itself. The writers of advertising copy for washing powders and detergent products sense the difference very well -- promising future customers that they will be able to smother and destroy `the dirt you see and the germs you don't'.
We may gather from what has been said thus far that the interest in purity, and the associated interest in `hygiene' (that is, keeping the dirt away) has more than an accidental relation to the fragility of order; to a situation in which we feel that we cannot rely on order taking care of itself, that we cannot expect order to survive our laxity, our doing nothing about it, by its own momentum. `Order' means a regular, stable environment for our action; a world in which the probabilities of events are not distributed at random, but arranged in a strict hierarchy -- so that certain events are highly likely to occur, others are less probable, some others virtually impossible. Only such an environment do we understand. Only in such surroundings (according to Wittgenstein's definition of understanding) do we `know how to go on'. Only here can we select our actions properly -- that is, with a reasonable hope that the results we have in mind will indeed be achieved. Only here can we rely on the habits and expectations we have acquired in the course of our being-in- the-world. We humans are endowed with memory and a capacity for learning, and for this reason we have vested interests in an `orderliness' of the world. Learned abilities to act are powerful assets in a stable and predictable world; they would become downright suicidal, though, if the events were suddenly to break out of the causal sequences and thus defy all prediction and take us by surprise. No one perhaps explained better what all this fuss about purity and fighting dirt is about than the great British anthropologist Mary Douglas, in her eye- opening book Purity and Danger (first published in 1966).
Dirt, Douglas suggested, is essentially disorder. There is no such thing as absolute dirt; it exists in the eye of the beholder... Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organize the environment... In chasing dirt, in papering, decorating, tidying, we are not governed by anxiety to escape disease, but are positively re-ordering our environment, making it conform to an idea. There is nothing fearful or unreasoning in our dirt-avoidance: it is a creative movement, an attempt to relate form to function, to make unity of experience... To conclude, if uncleanliness is matter out of place, we must approach it through order. Uncleanliness or dirt is that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained. 4 From Mary Douglas's analysis, the interest in purity and the obsession with the struggle against dirt emerge as universal characteristics of human beings: the models of purity, the patterns to be preserved change from one time to another, from one culture to another -- but each time and each culture has a certain model of purity and a certain ideal pattern to be kept intact and unscathed against the odds. Also, all concerns with purity and cleaning emerge from that analysis as essentially alike. Sweeping the floor and stigmatizing traitors or banishing strangers appear to stem from the same motive of the preservation of order, of making or keeping the environment understandable and hospitable to sensible action. This may well be so; but the explanation in such universal, extratemporal and species-wide terms does not go far towards evaluating various forms of purity-pursuits from the point of view of their social and political significance and the gravity of their consequences for human cohabitation.
If we focus our attention on the latter, we will immediately note that among the numerous incarnations of the pattern-sapping `dirt' one case, sociologically speaking, is of a very special, indeed unique, importance: namely, the case of when it is other human beings who are conceived of as an obstacle to the proper `organization of environment' -- when, in other words, it is other people, or more specifically a certain category of other people, who become `dirt' and are treated as such." [Zygmund Bauman, Postmodernity and its discontents]
Quote :
We will not see a symphony, novel, painting, scientific discovery come out of any real life Satyr. Joker or at least LM has accepted this about himself – though amazingly our real life Joker, yes, laughing man, has anactual gift for prose, but not one suited to argument, but well suited to novels – while Satyr pretends he wouldn’t really deep down want to actually create something since this would mean facing his own sense of being a failure. I create ideals. LOL.
For every one soul that creates, that is bold to stand on its own legs, that has its own voice, that strives to accomplish its highest potential, there will be a 100 good-for-nothings who try to bring that one down, smug satisfaction, that now all are equal.
Slander is a woman's game.
A man lets his WORK DO the talking, DO the rivalry, Do the competition.
But its always when one doesn't have the balls to make claims in the first place and act safe and remain secure. Never expose yourself.
Satyr himself is a work of art. All it takes is one tree, to make flourish a whole ecology. One opulent soul that inspires and breathes life with its mind, its Conduct, its aspirations, in a dead world, a male-forgetting world, a philosophy-forgetting world, a true-symphony forgetting world, a human-forgetting world, what it is to possess grandeur.
Satyr did make a discovery - he discovered a type. In all the information garbage, he had the eyes of a scientist to discern and select a missing link of the primordial blond beast in the modern world. A sociological discovery of how that type survives, adapts, behaves, endures in a viral infested nihilistic climate. But you keep on with your fence-setting; your petty insolence is all you have to show here.
And what were those pre-socratic greek philosophers, if not sages/scientists teaching a way of life, a school of thinking.
When Hannibal slashes someones, its an aesthetic, a way of thinking that he opens. When he cuts someone for being discourteous, you could call it a Hannibalism, and behind that stands a whole aesthetic. Satyr likewise inspires a novel mode of being,... his satyricon is a refined cynicism wedded to a buddhist bacchae that eschews all the easy paths that Resign in a -ism [its why nobody can see it]. Odysseus was the modern when he slew the cyclops who was relatively primitive, he Was the technlogo-ist to the beasts and the bewitching circes... but the urban jungle now is modern, it IS the odysseus now, the technological experts mount... and Satyr? Satyr is a Don Juan, a brooder, speaking with an apollonian mouth of Aurelius to go back to first principles. The only answer to a tech-drunk society is to recur as the over-odysseus with a higher order techno-logoi - the 'magic' of A hellenic simplicity.
If Technology is what multiplies arms, magic (simplicity) is what dis-Arms.... with ease... charisma.
Bacchus of Euripides, Hannibal, Satyr - are all dis-armers and send pan-ic into the world when the rude do not recognize this magic that is more superior and intoxicating, powerful than any Penthean technology a city boasts. Such illusions are torn to pieces, and each of the three do it their own way...
Dionysos mocks. Hannibal smirks. Satyr parodies.
A parody is well-balanced between an outright hot mockery and a cold sneer...
Aryan warriors slay with laughter.
It takes eyes to see nuances, the slightest difference in temperature sets apart a novel mode of thinking, relating, engaging with life... Satyr's philosophy has its accent in how he shows by his own life Man is the biggest magic, he needs nothing more than the simplicity that is himself. A man's magic is his MAN-ifesto. Its a very bleak view of the world smudging in self-oblivion that makes appeal to nothing and nobody, to take possession of themselves; a master-path of living with dignity, staying dominant in a space that has meme-tanks rolling in erasing everything in your way. Nietzsche did the work to show the Twilight was coming, but Satyr's work opens a clearing in the twilight.
Quote :
He is likely though partially compensated for this in that he embodies himself more clearly. He has not given up, while Lector conquered himself FOR society, of course Satyr will see this as simply being a better chess player than Joker.
Lecter conquered himself for LIFE, not society, dumbo.
Hannibal wrote:
"The tragedy is not to die, but be wasted."
EDIT: NE doesn't only consist in showing something, but also in resisting something. It takes a more active will to know what and when to resist. I would like to add, in Satyr's case, he's resisted much to "do the right thing" even if less 'glamorous' or less 'original' - as this age naturally demanded of him, than embroil himself in some superfluous creations just for the heck of it.
Might I add, Joker is a fictional character whereas LM Joker is a real human being.
I'm a real boy! I really am!
Well, assuming I can stay awake long enough tonight from my daily laboring I do so very much look forward to dissecting all of this. You've both have given me plenty to digest. Bravo!
I'll probably respond after I've eaten something. Yeah it sounds like you're advocating maximization as opposed to moderation, getting the most of yourself, people and things, without destroying them, even leaving them in a better state than they were before. And me? I don't care. It's not that I'm into not caring, it's just a fact. I care about my life, but I don't have the kind of enthusiasm you do for life, or aspire to have, and it's hard for me to believe anyone could actually read Nietzsche and think YES, that's it! But of course, we're all so different, and going through different phases and stages in our lives. I read it and think, my God, is he for real? It makes me nauseous.
2. In my opinion, I think your inference of Satyr is wrong, if by his 'nothing in excess', you mean the averaging of desires and living.
I think I get it now, you mean maximization, rather than moderation.
Going to ones limits but not beyond.
Quote :
Take note, 'Nothing in Excess' was a Delphism given at a time of barbaric excess among the Greeks; exuberant heroism and unbridled passion was taking, selecting out the cream of the race disproportionate to the pace of conserving such heroes.
Right, for you, ancient Greece was suffering from a kind of hyper-masculinity at the time "nothing in excess" was coined...
Quote :
Today's age is feminized, and its a different kind of barbarism which Satyr has identified as "hypermasculine displays", of being louder, vulgar, in-your-face-bigger, and the more thrilling life is sold as the "freest life"
...where as contemporary America is suffering from a kind of hyper-feminization, sometimes masquerading as masculinity.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.. I'm just indifferent.
To me, the masculinity/femininity dichotomy isn't as important as it is for you, it's not so, all encompassing for me.
Are we really more feminine now, than ever before?
In my estimation, I'd say we're more androgynous now, than ever before. The divide between males and females, for better or worse, is narrowing, and I'm not sure if it's a problem, so much as it's a largely appropriate response to the scientific technological political economy, we're inhabiting, where sexual specialization, woman as homemaker, man as breadwinner, is no longer as applicable, as it once was.
Society is more artificial than ever, further removed from nature than ever before. Does that make it more feminine or masculine? Neither, because on the one hand, man has an easier time surviving in nature than woman, but on the other, man is more capable of cultivating nature for women than women for men, so for me, it's neither here, nor there.
Baudrillard wrote:
…sense of futility that comes from doing anything merely to prove to yourself that you can do it: having a child, climbing a mountain, making some sexual conquest, committing suicide. The marathon is a form of demonstrative suicide, suicide as advertising: it is running to show you are capable of getting every last drop of energy out of yourself, to prove it… to prove what? That you are capable of finishing. Graffiti carry the same message. They simply say: I’m so-and-so and I exist! They are free publicity for existence. Do we continually have to prove to ourselves that we exist? A strange sign of weakness, harbinger of a new fanaticism for a faceless performance, endlessly self-evident.
Are those not all examples of "will to power?
Are they not merely challenging themselves?
Maximizing their potential?
Are they doing it Just to say they can do it.. are you sure?
Might some people who run a marathon, or climb a mountain, or have a child, be passionate about those activities?
Might they be expressions of who they are, as individuals, deep down?
Billiard is implying they're doing it for bragging rights.. nothing more, but he was French, wasn't he? Did he ever venture to America (I'm assuming he's criticizing America)? Does he resent Americans and their national spirit. Their determination.. their rugged individualism.. their pioneering spirit? Because English is more widely spoken than French, and America is a cultural, political and economic powerhouse, for better/worse?
Do Americans not also say - do what you do. Find something you're good at, something you're passionate about, and run with it? I think there's likely something there, but I also think Billiard is running away with it.
Did Americans not inherit some of their traits from the ancient Greeks?
Their competitive, indomitable spirit.. their lust for glory and grandeur?
Think the Olympics.
Satyr wrote:
In previous times fighting over females was a way of ensuring one's genetic future. Today its more about unfocused instinct, fighting over a momentary release...which will be done with as soon as it is over. The culture of recycling and throwing away. One attains, uses, and then goes for a better model; look at the housing market. In the past a family lived in a house for generations, now one changes homes like they change cars. Each one is a symbol of their work, their risks...their social ascent. Continuity with the past is broken and re-broken, connecting always with the immediate...with the current. But with simpler minds, simpletons, like animals, fornication has no outcome. The need is immediate...what follows is unknown. If, like with humans, it is known, it may be undesirable, as the state of fornication with no obligation is a state of childishness: a ceaseless exploration of hedonism/materialism with no goal except more hedonism and materialism. Humans, even the more retarded, are still slightly above animals in awareness."
Is it for the sake of it hedonism and materialism alone.
Didn't Billiard just say, they do all this, because they're braggarts?
Might it also be because of pride?
Achievement.. a sense of accomplishment?
Yeah in the past, man competed for more females, as well as the resources necessary for feeding many mouths, but since monogamy has been instituted, and since the advent of abortion/contraception, overpopulation and all the rest of it, competition is no longer as necessary as it once was, so where does man's superfluous energies get redirected? On hedonism, on materialism, on "meaningless" (in terms of biology) exploits, like running a marathon, or climbing a mountain. What are we to do, stop competing then? Or reinstitute polygamy and high birthrates? That would lead to a higher birthrate (overpopulation/crowding), can't have that, or, it might be offset by a higher death rate, due to fiercer competition, since wives and children would be hoarded, and many men would be denied the opportunity to copulate, leading to bloodshed, hostilities and the necessity of warfare, which could annihilate our species, but then, you're an advocate of ambition aren't you, and competing, expending energies to the max? So what are we to do with these superfluous energies, spend them on the internet, philosophizing and poeticizing, as opposed to hedonism and materialism? Have you thought it through? I think either competing less for more useless, worthless crap, or turning our minds to more artistic, intellectual and spiritual pursuits, would be a good thing, and maybe that's what's occurring here/now, and you can't say that's consistent with Homeric values, or any sort of values hitherto, that's a path humanity has yet to go down, if the historical records can be trusted.. but that's a topic for another day.
Satyr wrote:
To eyes that have never seen, any light above darkness, would be excessive. Pain flowing through the nervous system, entering the central hub, like a knife blade. The brilliance of exiting the cave.
Who shall endure suck brilliance?
To eyes that have lived in the twilight any prolonged exposure to it would be excessive. It would tire, its mind would want to close itself off, to lower the lids, and find peace in darkness. Who can endure seeing for long?
Nothing in Excess, we are told. Μηδεν Αγαν! Who can exceed his own ability to cope, who can lift a mass that will break him?
Who comes to philosophy thinking he has the stamina to endure what will be revealed? Μηδεν Αγαν! Why not consider your own endurance and close your eyes before you are broken? Μηδεν Αγαν! Do not know more than you can deal with. Μηδεν Αγαν! Do not see more than your eyes can bear. Μηδεν Αγαν! Do not understand more than what you can psychologically endure.
Seek darkness, ignorance, mediocrity, and settle for it. Why do you come looking, if you doubt your own constitution? Would you drink in excess? Would you eat in excess? Would you work in excess?
Who are these children who think themselves worthy of seeing, or knowing, of understanding? Did you think thinking was an equal opportunity discipline? Do you go to the gym seeking the heaviest weight to lift? Do you consider your frame durable enough, the equal to those other monsters beside you? Do you envy them? Are you this "humble"?
Μηδεν Αγαν! Why do you despise the one who reminds you that you are not equal to the task?
Why? Because you've bought into the crap about parity in potentials. Your fragile ego will not let it go. You remind others of it - you tell them of their ego - and yet there you are, overestimating yourself before them.
Μηδεν Αγαν! What does this mean to you, poor child? Does it mean a median all are forced to live beneath?
Μηδεν Αγαν! in knowing yourself, the child shouts, thinking he has found a chink in the metal. A warning: Do not know yourself, nor me, excessively. The body has a limit, as does the mind. How does one determine this limit, and then seek balance?
γνῶθι σεαυτόν As much as you can endure, as much as possible, and then... μηδέν άγαν
How does one forget what one has never known? How does one return to being a child, when he's never been a lion, nor a camel?"
This is a good point, in my estimation, I can't argue with it. We can all gain more physical and mental muscle by practicing, but some are born with more potential than others. That's common sense, or it used to be.
Satyr wrote:
In order to live lightly one must be discriminating...and unaffected by what is deemed inferior or useless, indifferent to the superfluous.
Yes, in a world where excess is popular, one would have to rely on his own senses, paying little heed to common nonsense.
I'll address the rest later..
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, I'm just indifferent.
To me, the masculinity/femininity dichotomy isn't as important as it is for you, it's not so, all encompassing, for me.
Are we really more feminine now, than ever before?
I said this elsewhere here when someone raised the same question as to why this gender dichotomy is so important. Its masculinity and the male spirit that characteristically stands apart, dominates, discriminates, distinguishes itself, competes, creates that pathos of distance, breaks limits, raises the bar, shifts horizons, opens new grounds, opens ranks, which is what Philosophy entails, then the preservation of the masculine spirit on which development of philosophy depends, is why there's bound to be and there has to be gender-centrism esp. in philosophy.
Satyr summarized the situation:
Satyr wrote:
"What is happening today in the west is a type of extinction. Human diversity may be incorporated within uniformity, but this does not mean that the distinctive characteristics of each breed of man do not suffer the natural consequences of attenuation. The European man is slowly being taken out of the scene. Along with him he takes the ingredients that made civilization, as we know it, possible." [Satyr, Manifesto]
Satyr wrote:
"A modern disconnect, a sense of disillusionment, a disrespect for all and everything, including of one’s own self, a loss of dignity, a decline towards feminine earthiness, with promiscuity and animalistic instincts unleashed upon the world, all revealed; a shallow and empty spirituality finding enlightenment in self-hating depravity and superficial idolatry. The deterioration of the masculine spirit is accompanied with the slow extinction of the pater, the father figure, the connector to one’s entire family legacy and to the spiritual realm which seeks to break free from its earthly bonds. The masculine spirit strives to rise above, to overcome, to fly upwards towards a projected divinity, an ideal, and its loss constitutes a decline towards the soil, the instinctive the hedonistic, emotional, irrational, and materialistic, the feminine." [ib.]
Satyr wrote:
"Man, alone, is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men. Because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise. Feminization is, paradoxically, of a masculine design. Nihilism is a male issue. Extinction is a male challenge. Is the male type a primitive expression of the human condition destined to be lost or marginalized? That remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, where masculinity is extinguished so is the spark of individuality, creativity, personality and un-harnessed curiosity." [Feminization]
I'm beginning to see that a lot of what he says, is a reaction to Americanization from a rightwing, Eurocentric, Hellenic, and perhaps even an east coast Canadian POV. I never understood why he used the word pagan to describe himself. His rightism rooted in Darwinism as opposed to Catholicism or Greek Orthodox. For me, paganism means the supernatural, superstitious beliefs of pre-Christian Europe and to a lesser extent, those seeking to revive them. I suppose he's using it more in a more metaphysical or psychosocial sense. He's not a Nazi, or even a fascist, I don't think, but of course, he's a racial realist. Ultimately, the individual precedes the race in priority for him. He's fond of Timocracy, which is a blending of democracy and oligarchy, but in many regards, his thought is rather apolitical, and his "NE" is apparently more than capable of flourishing underground, like right here, on this forum, or in him or someone like him alone. Yes it's a very peculiar blend of largely rightwing ideas, staunchly anti-American and antichristian. Still, though, I think it borrows a few things from Judaism/Christianity, I hear it in the way Lyssa talks about deviant sex, but of course they see it as rooted in Darwinism and in the "Noble Spirit" itself. Anyway, it's all very fascinating. I knew it was antichristian, but I'm just beginning to see how anti-American it is. With the whole Hellenic thing, it's really going back to Europe's roots, isn't it? Purging itself from Semitic influences completely. A Native European form of Aristocracy. It's not just his thing. Ultimately, all of this stems from Nietzsche, updated for modernity, he himself borrowing from Hellenic and Vedic culture, of which Lyssa is representative, or so it would seem.
If we assume that entropy is increasing then we can visualize this as a current...a wave, flowing towards a uniform expanse where it will settle down in some state of undisturbed expanse of nearly stillness....an expanse of near-infinite, glass-like smoothness.
The wave reminds me of Evola's imagery and his "Ride the Wave" title. Balance is like a tightrope walker, using Nietzsche's metaphors...and like a surfer or a mountain-climber. The wave builds momentum as it approaches the shore...the level solidity of the static absolute.
What is balance then, when nothing is still? It is this titter-tottering on the wave's peak, riding the wave and as such remaining unchanged in relation to it, before one falls over and is swept away.
This momentary balance is what control is. The mastery of one's self in relation to unco0tnrollable liquidity...the constant adjustment to the chaos of the wave, by finding in its flow patterns of predictability which help the surfer adjust himself in relation to it.
This is the image of the "dancing star" which the chaos can give birth to. The beautiful, the sublime amidst the churning interactivity."[/size]
I don't accept the theory of entropy, so it's difficult for me to comprehend what's being said here, I have to step way outside my paradigm. If we accept that life is a reaction to death, pain and suffering, and that they make life possible, just as birth makes life possible, then the idea would not be to eliminate death and negativity, but to endure as much as possible, without perishing. That would be the definition of being alive, like those extreme sports enthusiasts, or marathon runners, or mountain climbers, say they feel most alive when they're confronting death, and overcoming it, which is why when you speak against them, it confuses me, I see contradiction there. If that is the case, and modern life is much too decadent, much too soft and weak, then perhaps you should join Joker, and become an anarcho-primitivist or a survivalist awaiting Armageddon, so that you may confront death each and everyday you life, and thereby increase your liveliness.
Yeah, I think I get you, sort of.
I think you have a rather negative idea of life. Activity isn't merely a response to death, but also, a response to opportunities to give birth, and grow. Life isn't just a preservation of what is, but a propagation of what is, so just because you're safe, secure and sound, doesn't mean there's nothing to do, necessarily, you can still give birth and grow, upward, biologically and culturally. However, there's limits, resources are being depleted, which is why sustainability is critical.
For me, balance means sustainability, is the birth/death rate sustainable long term? If not, something has to give. Is there such a thing as being too comfortable? Too much positivity and too little negative? I think there is, so I'd have to agree with you, we need a little negativity in our lives, otherwise we atrophy, wither away and die, or we're not tough enough to face future challenges. There is such a thing as honing your blade for when the times comes. Finding the right balance is contentious. So perhaps we shouldn't bitch and complain too much, be thankful there remains some challenges to overcome - they animate us.
The problem with Anglo-America is they won't stop, they always want more of everything "good" and less of everything "bad", it's a sort of continuation of that otherworldly spirit, that longs for eternal slumber, hence nihilism. I'm glad we had this talk, I'm going to embrace my suffering a little more, from here on. I still have a different take on entropy though, but it doesn't matter, our metaphysics are sufficiently similar that we can find common ground and communicate.
Lyssa wrote:
In other words,
Stoicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism, Libertarianism, Democracy, Conservatism, whatever it is,
1. One first learns to see. Encircle it from all sides, understand what its pros and cons are.
2. Approaches it as a tool and Knows when to turn it on/off according to the circumstance in order to further his ends.
Every path is only a means, and not an ends in itself.
The goal of a NE is always self-efficiency. I say this, as, 'Becoming "god-like", maximum-order is that state where you give more and more, by spending less and less'. The effort becoming effortless.
There is no ends as life is always a becoming. Health is always a state towards maximum order, maximum self-assertion, reshaping the world in your image.
All of the aforementioned schools of thought have their differences, and the fact that these differences aren't important to you, says more about you then it does about them, in my view, but you could say, what most of them have in common is, and I think this is what you're getting at - they want to do away with death, or at least, pain and suffering, where as you embrace them, in doses, and for the most part, I agree with you, I think we need a balance of pleasure and pain, rather than having everything pleasure and nothing pain. I've held this notion for a long time, and it's present in other forms of thought too, I hear it in some, but not all, philosophies of the east, like Alan Watts take on Zen Buddhism, but you'll likely lump him in with the aforementioned schools. I've been conscious of this line of thinking for a long time, this kind of balance, as opposed to the atrophied one, but I just might begin applying it to my daily life, more, we'll see.
Quote :
17.
Hedonism of whatever kind - homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, or whatever path that reduces life to a sensation of pleasure as the only good is a caricature of life, and such nihilistic decadence can never be a part of affirmative NE.
Ever watch porn?
Ever masturbate?
Putting such gross characterizations of human nature aside, such as hedonism or its antithesis, whatever you want to call it, Ethical Darwinism, in reality, humans have all sorts of needs, desires and values, pleasure and survival being two of the more prominent ones. In reality, like when you put dressing on your salad, or you notice a girl with a pretty dress and makeup, or you go scuba diving, you're largely prioritizing pleasure over health/survival. My position is, sometimes we're hedonists, sometimes we're ethical Darwinists, and sometimes we're pursuing some other end, like curiosity, or friendship, or materialism, or whatever. Sometimes we place this ahead of that, and that ahead of this. Sometimes we're able to satisfy many of our needs at the same time, and sometimes we have dilemmas, where one must be sacrificed for another. Depending on how frequently you choose to sacrifice knowledge for hedonism, or survival for friendship, says a lot about you. We cannot and do not always choose to maximize survival over this, or pleasure over that. We can aspire to do so, but the higher we set the bar, the more likely we'll miss the mark. We are not robots, or what humans imagine robots would be like, there are all sorts of conscious and subconscious reasons for why we do what we do, and while a lot of them normally have something to do with survival, or we wouldn't be here, survival/propagation of genes, cannot be and is not an absolute. All this talk is a gross simplification of what it means to be human, and you will run into error as a result, you will strive for this or that, and fail. The organism doesn't need to consciously think survival, survival, 24/7, in order to survive, in fact, who says being conscious of survival is always good for survival? Sometimes organisms run best on intuition/instinct, it's a balancing act. All of this dismissal of abnormal sexual practices has a lot more to do with Judeo-Christian nihilism than pagan affirmation than I think you realize. I can perceive value in ranking certain activities above others, but not absolutely, like you do.
Quote :
18.
Lastly, NE is not a "path" where one can ask "what can it do for me", etc. - as if one had a choice to BE something else... It is an innate sensibility, an inherited taste that is nurtured; its not even if you "have" it or not,,, you either Are it, or you are not. If you cannot feel that distinction, that urge makes you put distance between you and everything else [commonly and easily mistaken for modern stirnerite narcissism, "I am unique" in that superficial sense], then Nothing can teach you, and whatever else is acquired will only give you a semblance of nobility. --- like the many herd who come here to collect patches of wisdom in the belief information is knowing, or, mugging up values and mottos and points of views to appear noble or superior, will not betray the common-all-too-commonness of their spirit. Nurture can only nurture one's inherited nature. And the corollary: even if one comes from a NE line, the inheritance will amount to nothing if it isn't brought up to one's consciousness, giving birth to a second body from the merely inherited body.
Knowing Thyself is accepting and affirming your limitations and strengths and your station in life without ressentiment.
I disagree, this contradicts your typical line of thought, shades, degrees, as opposed to, you're either it or you aren't, and it makes everything you've written here seem impotent, if it has no power to seduce or sway one from one side of the fence, to the other. Sure, some biological or psychological types might be more responsive than others, but still require some of your teachings to fully enlighten themselves, and without that wisdom, the "Noble Spirit" (almost like the holy spirit, 2nd body, you say?) might not be able to fully possess someone, if you will.
Quote :
19.
Reg., Spartanize your needs, Romanize your desires - your needs are spartan only when your will is focussed. The emergence of an organism is from the clash of diverse needs brought under a dominant control; morality is nothing but the (power) expression of your rank-values. Again, an organism always tends to the path of least resistance. One needs to Romanize one's desires since expansion = space = growth and you cannot Real-ize your max. potential or possibility - i.e. your max. freedom of being, if the will to self-overcome doesn't seek greater and greater resistances like levers against which it can assert itself and grow. This freedom is a degree and never absolute.
As said before, heightened consciousness is the maximum dissonance you can incorporate under control into a harmony that resounds effortlessly - genius is a melody.
This is difficult for me to follow, I'll have to mull it over, ruminate.
20.
Quote :
Speaking generally, just because something collapsed like the Roman Empire or the Greek culture, and something will always collapse as decadence and attrition is part of the natural cycle of growth, doesn't mean, one remains conservative or does not will with the farthest and long-lasting vision in mind. Today, one has to do the best one can to preserve and strengthen The idea(l) that fights against levelling in whatever form it comes, and fights for the most golden overflowing health; the highest eros is the maximum degree and duration one can affirm life in/for its every aspect.
I disagree, and I think you've contradicted yourself, because if this is the case, then that would make you a transhumanist like Aeon. Why not take it all the way, then, as far as you can go? Annihilate nature, be done with it and invent something completely new, like a world without suffering, where the lion lays down with the lamb, and if it can't be done, or there's consequences, do it anyway, always strive for more? How can you strive for more, without increasing life, and decreasing death/pain/suffering, unless you fail? It seems like you want to pillage/plunder, eat/drink, but not suffer the hangover, the inevitable decadence that'll ensue, as a result of too many successes. It's like you want to have it both ways, but I fail to see how that can possibly be.
Last edited by Divergense on Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
