Withdrawal

Æon wrote:

Diver,

Some advice for you in dealing with Satyr and Lyssa, both retards in my opinion...take this advice or leave it.  You may not even find it necessary or useful to you, since I've already seen some of your great potential in action before.  You ought to overcome both of these numbskulls without difficulty.

Lyssa is a mind-slave of Satyr, and she can't do much other than repeat Satyr's positions which she adopted as her own.  So arguing against Lyssa essentially is like arguing with Satyr.  Every once in awhile, Satyr will step in, when he or Lyssa feels insecure.  It's easy to pull Lyssa down to the emotional level, since she lacks reasoning.  Satyr will step in when threatened and his positions are assaulted.  This is easy to do.

Basically, don't buy into their definitions.  Define your own terms, and assert authority over both Lyssa and Satyr.  These two idiots like to define everything in terms of "male and female".  This is an error.  Can people automatically ascribe the male gender, or female gender, for example, to "order and chaos"?  Is that truly a necessary connection to make?  No, instead, chaos and order are values.  And genders may have different values, but this cannot speak to the invidiuality of a male or female.

Go into the particulars.  What is this male about?  What is that female about?  What is a "masculine woman" or "feminine man"?  Satyr and Lyssa are stuck on these topics.

You have a natural gift, a knack for deconstructing everything.  And I think that will overpower Satyr and Lyssa's rationale.  Satyr claims "degree" and "nuance".  But you are far more nuanced than Satyr.  You, and I, we both see far more details than he does, more discriminating.

And you are very epistemological.  You can really break down philosophical concepts to their core components, and relay them in a common way, to common people.  Satyr is more elitist.  He wants a following and contingent.  He wants popularity and social acceptance, on some level.  He is not as "indifferent" as he claims.  And I've seen that weakness too many times now.

This is a warning, because Lyssa is a little tricky and deceptive sometimes.  You have to watch out for her lies.  She is a liar.  But I can see through her petty lies.  She rarely, or never, speaks truly.  So, in my opinion, responding to her and interacting with her, maybe a waste of your time.  It maybe more worthwhile just to assault Satyr head on, and ignore that liar.

I'll take everything you said into consideration.

That being said, I want to experience Lyssa for myself.

Lyssa wrote:

What is the world and existence if not activity?

The 'I' is always in becoming relative to the becoming of the worl

Activity isn't anymore a part of the world, than say, size, shape, or, normality, is a part of the world. Point to one thing, without size, shape or degrees of normality. Normality is just as pervasive, and just as objectively part of the world as activity, or any other concept you can think of. The fact that Heraclitus, Nietzsche and their disciples, have promoted this one concept/quality, one of hundreds, thousands, or even infinity, and elevated it above and beyond all others, is totally arbitrary, in my view, and says more about them than it does about the world. Some concepts/qualities seem more fundamental than others, like activity and form seem more fundamental than say, paper, but point to one thing that's totally unlike paper, everything could be said to be a degree of paper, because everything is relative, unless you believe in Plato's theory of forms or something like it, a world of static absolutes.

Quote :

Calling dissolution and negating/resigning oneself in uniformity, nothingness as Passive is feminine since that is the state closest to nature, the flux of becoming, the principle of change, which occurs with no effort. Therefore passive.

If passivity is closest to nature, than is passivity more fundamental than activity, or is passivity a subcategory of activity, or vice versa?

Causality, which I'm inclined to believe is how the cosmos operates, applies to both life and nonlife, and in that important sense, life and nonlife, masculinity and felinity, are all equally passive.

While females are known for their passivity, they defer to males or to authority figures more easily and readily, does that make them more natural? Does air, water and earth, nonlife, defer to things more readily and easily than life? What about metals, pieces of metal might be around more/less unaltered in the same state for millions of years, long outlasting humans, even small, microscopic pieces of metal, does that mean metals are more aggressive than nonlife, more resistant, and if so, does that make females more like nature, or less?

You could say, absolute aggression and passivity both equally lead to death and dissolution, depending on how you define aggression and passivity, if you define passivity as decay, however, or equate it with decay and say they are both examples of the same concept/quality, then yes, passivity = decay = returning to nature, but then as I pointed out, nature isn't necessarily anymore in a state of decay than life, and passivity, in a psychosocial context, and decay, may be two different things altogether, in fact I think they are, or should considered to be as such, and thus, a woman's passivity has nothing more/less to do with decay and returning to nature, than a males aggression, and really, it's an imbalance, deficient or excess aggression, that leads to dissolution.

Quote :

Its more appropriate to speak in terms of feminine and masculine as there are females with masculine predominance and males with feminine predominance. The strict divisions that you attribute to me or Satyr is not there; unless of course you get your information via. Neon.

Agreed.

Quote :

As I told you, you should check out Weininger's Sex and Character

I should read Weininger. I've been developing my own theory of sex/gender, and Weininger's insights could assist me with it,even if I end up disagreeing with him on some points, it'd be good for the contrast. I'm not going to get into it too much here, perhaps in another thread.