Forums

Essays + Theses seems to have disappeared....

I wonder why?

Incidentally, the Fem of Man got kicked into Social Sciences.

Doesn't matter.

I'd have bumped it, but it's locked. They want it buried, but are too pussy to simply delete it.

apaosha wrote:

I'd have bumped it, but it's locked. They want it buried, but are too pussy to simply delete it.

Yes...The instinct of self-preservation must fool itself, first and foremost. In this case they wish to remain loyal to their ideal or their conception of themselves in relation to the ideal: open-mindedness, equality, integrity, , intelligence, democratic, all-inclusive, respectful...etc.

In order to do so and still do away with anything that challenges this notion they come up with mostly unconscious methods like these.

I've been following this thread for a while: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Very interesting. Especially from about page 4-5 onwards when the kids get bored and wander off.

Eugene Marrow wrote:

Some physicists have argued that philosophy is becoming obsolete because of mathematical precision, and it's high time that one was thrown on the rubbish heap too.

In his book on TEW, Little mentions philosophy quite a lot. One of his best quotes is in the Introduction:

Quote :

An internationally known physicist and professor at Cornell has stated "We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks". And yes, he was dead serious. It is as if physics, once a science whose purpose was to render the physical universe intelligible, had morphed into the exact opposite: an absurdist drama based on the theme that we live in a universe where nothing makes sense, exhorting people to abandon reason altogether.

The reference is to N. David Mermin, "The Journal of Philosophy", Vol 78. No. 7 (July 1981), pp 397-408.

Little criticizes physics for not seeing that the contradictions of qm can guide them to a new theory. Little points out the basics on page 17:

Quote :

Logical proof assumes the validity of the law of non-contradiction. The usefulness of logic in the development of our knowledge of reality - and there is nothing else to know - requires that the law of non-contradiction by true in reality. Were it not true - if contradictions could exist - proofs of any kind would be vacuous. Indeed, the very concept of proof would be meaningless. What would a proof be proving if the opposite to its conclusion could be true as well?

This becomes relevant when we look at how qm focuses on mathematics above all else. There is a philosophical method implied in what qm is doing, which Little describes this way on page 16 (underlines added by me):

Quote :

Modern physicists claim to be interested only in developing formulas that "work" in describing behavior. Contradictions are of no concern to them; after all, they are merely developing a formalism, not describing anything real. Contractions, in this view, manifest a new, "higher" logic within this extra-real formalism. Once they have developed their formalism, however, they contradict themselves by claiming that their formalism established facts about reality, such as the claims that the particle goes through both slits and that non-locality exists. Perhaps the best name for their methodology would be the"somersault philosophy".

Little catches qm doing somersault philosophy many times in the book. What Little shows is that if the contradictions are taken seriously, this points to new ideas that are the roots of TEW - which provides a local and deterministic picture of all the quantum results. It is only by ignoring contradictions that qm is maintained. The TEW book is a refreshing injection of philosophy back into all the mumbo jumbo of physics. That is why I have started this thread on a philosophy forum - TEW is important to both areas.

In other words they are beginning to realize that the noumenon is a representation of the phenomenon...a metaphor, a symbol expressed with a visual or a sonar form.

Quantum Physics is returning science to its roots: philosophy, and is including in its descriptions art.
What can be more descriptive than the image of a vibrating sting that has no existence outside its dynamic nature as vibrating? The thing dissipates and activity remains.
Math is no less a simplifying, generalizing system of semiology which refers back on itself.
It's logic is a logical consistency with its own premises.

Read this idiot here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Has anyone at anytime ever come across one of my posts where I claim to be the "overman"?
No, but his insecurity forces him to consider the fact that I might be...so he's conducting an internal dialogue wondering if I'm "all that' in persona and not only in mind.
For this specimen anyone who says the truth with honesty must be the benefactor of it. How many times have I not said that, at least for me, Nietzsche's concept of an "overman" is nothing more than a projection of a future man who has overcome his resentment of himself...in other words a man who can enjoy life, and say yes to it, and this includes what makes this life possible: death; a man who has stopped hating his own temporal essence.
For this simpleton, as it is obvious from his remarks about "finding me in a wheelchair" the concept of "overman" is still connected to some Nazi ideal: or some Nordic, Greek Deity who dominates all he comes across and has them at his feet as slaves...no doubt many simpletons still can't get rid of this personal conception, derived from their own inner insecurities which they then project as desirable ends. As if, if this simpleton does find me in a wheelchair this somehow devalues everything I've said, disproves it and makes his sniveling, liberal, weakness less of a fact.
If anything it would be my having no interest in the truth I am proposing and in fact being also insulted by it that would make me saying it all the more potent.

But for this retard, like many others like him, my intellectual prowess must be accompanied by a physical one...I am not saying it is not, but only that it is not necessary.
Nietzsche himself was sickly and not much of a macho guy at all...does this make his views wrong?

What's at play here is that these mental-midgets having been bested over and voer again by me, when they still posture and delcare themselves victors, love the idea of me being somehow inferior to them physically; at least let it be physically that he is my lesser they tell themselves, and haivng no way of knowing for sure they imagine and hope and dream.

I have to say all this crap has become tiresome to me.
Some weeks ago the other retard eyesinthedark accused me of believing in the objectivity of morals and for years now the usual turd Purple Dragon has been attacking me with accusations of things I never said.
I've been involved in it for over ten years now and besides some good outcomes and connections I cannot find a reason to continue. There's just too much stupidity....it is overwhelming. I'm drowning in it, even in my "real" life. Maybe I need a long break...maybe it shall become permanent.
Maybe I'll find a balance in visiting but not participating.
Dealing with morons for so long I cannot see an end in sight.
Stupidity has its own built-in survival mechanism.

Satyr wrote:

How many times have I not said that, at least for me, Nietzsche's concept of an "overman" is nothing more than a projection of a future man who has overcome his resentment of himself...in other words a man who can enjoy life, and say yes to it, and this includes what makes this life possible: death; a man who has stopped hating his own temporal essence.

Why is such a man only one of the future? Such men exist here and now, and have done since the dawn of time. Perhaps the question would better be phrased as why some men - such as Nietzsche - cannot embrace life? Why do some men hate their own essence?

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

>My interpretation was based on a point brought out in Kaufman’s book on Nietzsche: that he considered his sickness an asset in that he felt he would achieve his greatness by overcoming it.


How ridiculous this sounds!!... No, he did not feel that he "would" achieve his "greatness"; he felt he "could" and did convert his sickness to his advantage "because" his inner instincts were "already" one of "great health":

"A doctor who treated me for some time as a nerve patient finally declared: "No! there's nothing the matter with your nerves; I myself am the nervous one." They have been unable to discover any local degeneration in me, or any organic stomach trouble, however much I may have suffered from profound weakness of the gastric system as the result of general exhaustion. Even my eye trouble, which at times approached dangerously near blinding, was only an effect and not a cause; for, with every improvement of my general bodily health came a corresponding increase in my power of vision.
An all too long series of years meant recovery to me. But, sad to say, it also meant relapse, breakdown, periods of decadence. After this, need I say that I am experienced in questions of decadence? To view healthier concepts and values from the standpoint of the sick, and conversely to view the secret work of the instinct of decadence out of the abundance and self-confidence of a rich life-this has been my principal experience, what I have been longest trained in. If in anything at all, it was in this that I became a master.
Agreed that I am a decadent, I am also the very reverse. Among other things there is this proof: I always instinctively select the proper remedy in preference to harmful ones; whereas the decadent, as such, invariably chooses those remedies which are bad for him. I placed myself in my own hands, I restored myself to health: to do this, the first condition of success, as every physiologist will admit, is that the man be basically sound. A typically morbid nature cannot become healthy at all, much less by his own efforts. On the other hand, to an intrinsically sound nature, illness may even act as a powerful stimulus to life, to an abundance of life. It is thus that I now regard my long period of illness: it seemed then as if I had discovered life afresh, my own self included. I tasted all good and even trifling things in a way in which others could not very well taste them - out of my Will to Health and to Life I made my philosophy. [A]n excellent man... gladdens our senses. [EH, Wise]


>(His tendency to think in terms of his "greatness" should have been a cue.)


Every normal and healthy person tend to speak of themselves with pride. This is the Natural state of any healthy spirit. And N. additionally was also self-honest enough to think in terms of his decadence.

>However, doesn’t this make a lot of his thought seem a little more about fancy (as it was compared to imagination by Coleridge)? Nietzsche talks a lot about suffering. This further led to his condemnation of slave morality.


Superficial... he did not condemn slave morality, he condemned the Imposition of slave morality as "the" morality for all.


>And this has been interpreted, in a tight fisted, Machiavellian way, as being a call to an environment in which the strongest are given privilege


How funny; putting "strong" and "given" privilege would be the biggest Nietzschean oxymoron. The ER was specifically designed to oppose the creation of any such environments where the strong would be given privileges!!
"Not to preach morality to man in any form, as if "morality in itself", or any ideal kind of man, were given; but to "create conditions" that "require stronger men" who for their part need, and consequently will "have" a morality (more clearly: a physical-spiritual discipline) that "makes them strong"." [WTP, 981]

>(that is as if the weaker should just accept it).


Just the contrary; N. believed "there is nothing to life that has value, except the degree of power". He wished the weak would stop Hiding!! behind their moral masks, under their good and evil, and Fight for their "privilges".


>For instance: I would like to know how much philosophizing Nietzsche could have done with a whip cracking at his back.


How misleading on so many accounts... *to him phil. was an art of living, how one conducts oneself, whip cracking or not! Phil. is not sitting writing books. *To him life itself was the building spirit that builds under the most unfavourable conditions. Nevermind, the terrible pain of illnesses weighing on him - as if that weren't severe enough, he wrote and put out his books in an environment where he was hated from all quarters - the germans, the j.christians, the university - profs. and scholars, the art circle,,, figure. The whole moral machinary was at his back and he barely earned anything from the books he put out. That he philosophized "despite" the whip cracking at his back is to his "great health". *Even in the most pacifist conditions, such men as N. would be at whipping their back by their own selves... *And lastly, N. never equated Might with the eradication or torture of the Weak, but their Preservation! -
"“To become the Advocate of the Rule [the Herd, the Weak] – that might be the ultimate form and refinement in which noblemindedness reveals itself on earth.” [JW, 55].


>But to illustrate my point further: suppose I finally got tired of Satyr’s shit and decided to hunt him down. Now imagine if what I found, when I got there, was an invalid in a wheelchair? This probably isn’t the case.


Nice view of "Might" !

>But you still have to wonder if all this shit people talk (based on some fantasy about being the “Overman”) isn’t based on fantasy.


Neither N. himself nor his Zarathustra called themselves the Overman.
N. was right... all the mass production of his books and materials and yet one cannot digest more than one's natural pre-determined limit. One can't but delight in N.'s prophetic laughter... how he played with humanity without denying them, no rancor... you can hold his book in your hand, and yet not be able to grasp or digest it... And when one can't digest, one then bans like an effete male or one spreads gossips and rumours like a female.

"God is a conjecture; but I desire that your conjectures should not reach beyond your creative will. Could you create a god? Then do not speak to me of any gods. But you could well create the overman. Perhaps not you yourselves, my brothers. But into fathers and forefathers of the overman you could re-create yourselves: and let this be your best creation.
God is a conjecture; but I desire that your conjectures should be limited by what is thinkable. Could you think a god? But this is what the will to truth should mean to you: that everything be changed into what is thinkable for man, visible for man, feelable by man. You should think through your own senses to their consequences." [TSZ, Blessed Isles]

So much for the charge of 'fantasy'...

Satyr wrote:

In other words they are beginning to realize that the noumenon is a representation of the phenomenon...a metaphor, a symbol expressed with a visual or a sonar form.

Quantum Physics is returning science to its roots: philosophy, and is including in its descriptions art.
What can be more descriptive than the image of a vibrating sting that has no existence outside its dynamic nature as vibrating? The thing dissipates and activity remains.
Math is no less a simplifying, generalizing system of semiology which refers back on itself.
It's logic is a logical consistency with its own premises.

The point of their discussion is more that QM references the noumenon in order to explain the phenomenon. That reason is set aside to the point that a man can say that the moon is demonstrably not there when there is no one perceiving it.
It is this solipsism of QM, demonstrated by Schrodinger's Cat which was itself a reductio ad absurdam, that interested me in their discussion.

They're saying in effect that the mathematical predictions of QM, so much that the predictions are probabilities rather than certainties, are correct - but that the explanation that is derived from these predictions in QM is not.

Eugene Marrow advocates TEW: Theory of elementary Waves. James S Saint has his own theory which he keeps to himself.

It interests me with respect to determinism, causality and how quantum level interactions reflect on the philosophy of an infinite regress. I don't pretend to understand QM and it irks me that such a fundamental principle of modern physics is so impenetrable.

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

The den of dimwits is now on the edge of self-knowledge.
They feel something is "wrong" and that "seriousness" is absent form their forum, and they wish to change this.

The state of having imbeciles interject themselves within every topic is proving to be "less than productive"; the all-inclusion" democratic egalitarianism which only manages to level all down to the intellectual quality of the lowest common denominator, expressed by the intelligence of the aggregate average, is now not so satisfying to some.

It happens.


More so what happens is that the most retarded member of the group owing to the moral system that MUST include them lowers all discussions to the level (s)he is comfortable with....or least offended by.

the moderators driven by an innate appreciation of their group's average awareness and tolerance levels, will always side with the one who is representative of the majority or the one who reflects the potential for the most participation.

Quantity is regarded as preferable to Quality, because the majority cannot or dares not define what is meant by "quality", whereas numbers and percentages it can grasp using the ambiguity and commonly accepted abstraction of mathematics.

Therefore, 1=1...and whether this 1 is a moron or a genius is of no matter, since all are equated with the numerical symbol of oneness.
The 1 negates the other, and so if the morons are more numerous the #1 becomes a term representing the aggregate average awareness of these morons.
Democracy having been planted as the preferred political concept or the best concept for organizing any human grouping, is accepted as the starting point.
Because retards always outnumber anyone of intelligence they become the deciding factor in any human grouping which nestles in the comforting egalitarianism.

Although discrimination is denounced and elitism condemned it is still applied, only it is applied with the decree of the majority.
Those to be excluded are those that deny this majority's preference and the only ones to be discriminated against are those who go against this common "good"...which in this case included participation and respectability.
In essence all will be tolerated no matter how obtuse and simple they are, flooding the discussion or redirecting all discussion back towards the aggregate average which, given the moral standard of all-inclusivity, is being constantly lowered by the influx of numbers into the group.

Anything stated outside the comfort level of this constantly declining average's moral standards or anything which lies outside this average's capacity to understand is either ridiculed, insulted, or dumbed-down so that more can participate.
In this case "trolling" is tolerated given that it is in agreement with the majority's moral and intellectual compass...just as it would be tolerable to torture a "terrorist" by a "Christian soldier" or how it would be tolerable to discriminate against a "racist" or even kill a Nazi, for example.

The moral standard and the social rule of concerning etiquette only applies to those whoa adhere to the average's comfort and intelligence level.It is contradicted at will in all other cases with no sing of self-criticism.
This is due to compartmentalization or a form of socially induced and accepted schizophrenia, as I've defined it elsewhere.

We witness here a mechanism of indoctrination, without the use of force; a self-censoring, self-harmonizing form of leveling - I've called it domestication or feminization as well.

It is inevitable that any attempt to break free from this process without a total split; a total severing or redefinition of one's personal morals and conceptions, as these have been given to him and socially trained into him, would result in failure.
It would be highly unlikely that those trying to raise the average standard of participation, by excluding huge parts of the group they are trying to fragment, could sustain the will and the agreement, between themselves, in the face of the onslaught of numerical storms.

Without a redefinition and a rejection of commonly held beliefs, taken to be self-evident, no form of exclusivity is possible.

What we see here is a burgeoning elitism; a (re)action to the mediocrity that has gone on for so long as to have lowered the aggregate level of participation to unacceptable, so some few, levels.
Democratic methods and politeness can only increase mediocrity because its ultimate aim is not the increase of quality but that of quantity.

An interesting experiment nonetheless.

Read how over at ILP they are now admitting that their all-inclusive, heavily moderated forum is slumping towards mundane babbling and increasing mediocrity.

They are admitting that their forum is a joke since they now wish to cut away form it a portion to be dedicated to more "serious" content bu a more "select" group.
The all-inclusive, let us protect the weakest so as to promote participation is turning to a kind-of, sort-of, shy elitism.

Funny how a retard, one of the most stupid posters over there is now inserting himself, casually, within this emerging intellectual elite grouping; so much for his democratic ideals.
He is only for equality when he is not afraid of being exposed as a moron and when he feels safe that his stupidity will not be exploited.

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

At some point someone has to tell this retard, d63, what a total imbecile he truly is.
He's like a wound wanting to be scratched or salted.

Read this coward, who taunted and then ran off, drunk to numb his wounds, try to discuss Nietzsche.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

His conception comes form Modernistic propaganda and Nazi atrocities.
He has about as much understanding of what the "overman" is as Sauwelios does as to why he is a contradiction to the very ideals he worships in his idol's name.

He's adorably stupid.

If he were not part of a majority which has been bred to remain malleable to emotional arguments he would be harmless.


The funniest part of it all is that all of them, over there, do not even realize that they are inadvertently admitting that their forum is mediocre and it is so because the weak and the stupid have been protected from those who could cull them or drive them off....in other words that their "democratic system", reflecting real world conditions, is coming to the exact same outcomes.

These liberals concerned about the lowliest of the low, wanting to make a space for them to be included, are now veering towards a kinder gentler elitism...a more indirect, ambiguous, hypocritical kind.
See, they are not preventing participation by anyone but they are merely suggesting that they want to exclude themselves from this rabble for more "serious" discussions.
But they will do so with none of the overt stuff like nasty name-calling and direct insult. They will use "third person" methods to pretend that what they are saying, though insulting and degrading to the other, is NOT really about them.
Then they can pretend something more profound is occurring.

Also funny that the douche-bag has inserted himself as an obvious part of the "elite", though he is dumb as shit and assaults anyone who is a discriminating - he calls them "bullies" because he feels intimidated by them.

Flame Imperishable wrote:

I almost insulted that guy for that very post today, but I held back. I found it unbelievably annoying.

And what are you known as over there in the den of dimwits?

Flame Imperishable wrote:

nothingness

How...nihilistic of you.

I love the part PavlovianModel146 is playing.
He once came here wanting to explore my positions on metaphysics.
After a few days, weeks, he was assured that it was nothing new or that he already knew that shit and he quickly went away.

Before he went he wanted to assure me that he was pretending over there for the sake of utility and that he didn't really and truly respect any of the douche-bags he routinely protected but that he did it because it was civil and because Carleas, his master presumably, had entrusted him with the role of being gate-keeper to the realm.

I played along wanting to see where he was going with this shit.
Presumably nowhere.
He came here wanting to be assured that what he banned, primarily me, and supported the banishment of, with reservations, was nothing he would miss, so to speak.
Later he came here to tell me how he was against the locking of my essay [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which had magically occurred during that time.

In another occasion he asked me if I wanted my essay unlocked or my moniker, connected to said essay, reinstated from the derogatory Lollipop King back to Satyr.
He wanted to know if I wanted to ask for this from the "board of moderators" and if he could serve me as my middle-man arguing my side to the others.
I felt like he was enjoying himself, as if he were talking no behalf of the secret covenant of Internet Masons bent on restricting free-speech and restricting all opinions to those the majority would never be hurt by - the real world, in other words.

He was very accommodating and friendly and kind, playing on my vanity and wanting me to let my guard down, to see him as a kindred spirit that was trying to do the best he could under challenging circumstances.
It was all congenial and civil, you see. All prim and proper as any intelligent gentleman would be expected to behave.
The selected moniker of Pavlovian Model is more of an indication of what he is.

Fausty is a simpleton and douche-bag, feeling some power in being a moderator. He now limits himself to laconic remarks, logical games and conducting the business of being the master's strings.
Any time he's ventured into commenting in anything outside mathematics and the stringent metaphors of abstracted monism, and the symbolic language they use (math, language used literally) he has exposed his real quality. He once told me that the forum he was defending, and was desiring to remain an open cesspool of participation, was a fun-house; a casual get-together not really worth anything.
That about sums up Fausty's own motives...sort of says something about Pav, as well.
Pavlovian, on the other hand, is more cunning.
No doubt a liberal douche-bag himself, he hides it and is content in being a string and a means and the defender of what he considers "decent" and "good" and "civil", well within the agreement boundaries his master Carleas has placed him within.
He's a salesman.
But he also fancies himself the grifter; the one who plays the game the best.
He still wants to retain the air of dominance while playing the game of equality.
Outside of that I can't find any indication in any single one of his posts of anything more than a commoner; someone who has adapted the personae and the etiquette and secretly feels some satisfaction in not being seen for what he is...or thinks he is.

I think he's internalized his social lessons and although he understands, viscerally, the other side he cannot help but be totally committed to the herd.
I would not be surprised if her were using multiple aliases to get away with his pretense and to unload his hidden self while never facing the consequences.

What's amazing is that they're intentionally asking for more rules and more restriction on what they can say and do.... in effect more protection from the consequences of their actions, rather than less.

On here, you act like a retard, you get treated like one. This promotes caution, because you might not like what gets exposed when you overextend yourself. On there, you point out retardation - you're punished.

They don't want quality. They want quantity. This is just more of the same.

Satyr wrote:

I love the part PavlovianModel146 is playing.
He once came here wanting to explore my positions on metaphysics.
After a few days, weeks, he was assured that it was nothing new or that he already knew that shit and he quickly went away.

Before he went he wanted to assure me that he was pretending over there for the sake of utility and that he didn't really and truly respect any of the douche-bags he routinely protected but that he did it because it was civil and because Carleas, his master presumably, had entrusted him with the role of being gate-keeper to the realm.

I played along wanting to see where he was going with this shit.
Presumably nowhere.
He came here wanting to be assured that what he banned, primarily me, and supported the banishment of, with reservations, was nothing he would miss, so to speak.
Later he came here to tell me how he was against the locking of my essay [url=/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=143894]The Feminization of Mankind[/url], which had magically occurred during that time.

In another occasion he asked me if I wanted my essay unlocked or my moniker, connected to said essay, reinstated from the derogatory Lollipop King back to Satyr.
He wanted to know if I wanted to ask for this from the "board of moderators" and if he could serve me as my middle-man arguing my side to the others.
I felt like he was enjoying himself, as if he were talking no behalf of the secret covenant of Internet Masons bent on restricting free-speech and restricting all opinions to those the majority would never be hurt by - the real world, in other words.

He was very accommodating and friendly and kind, playing on my vanity and wanting me to let my guard down, to see him as a kindred spirit that was trying to do the best he could under challenging circumstances.
It was all congenial and civil, you see. All prim and proper as any intelligent gentleman would be expected to behave.
The selected moniker of Pavlovian Model is more of an indication of what he is.

Fausty is a simpleton and douche-bag, feeling some power in being a moderator. He now limits himself to laconic remarks, logical games and conducting the business of being the master's strings.
Any time he's ventured into commenting in anything outside mathematics and the stringent metaphors of abstracted monism, and the symbolic language they use (math, language used literally) he has exposed his real quality. He once told me that the forum he was defending, and was desiring to remain an open cesspool of participation, was a fun-house; a casual get-together not really worth anything.
That about sums up Fausty's own motives...sort of says something about Pav, as well.
Pavlovian, on the other hand, is more cunning.
No doubt a liberal douche-bag himself, he hides it and is content in being a string and a means and the defender of what he considers "decent" and "good" and "civil", well within the agreement boundaries his master Carleas has placed him within.
He's a salesman.
But he also fancies himself the grifter; the one who plays the game the best.
He still wants to retain the air of dominance while playing the game of equality.
Outside of that I can't find any indication in any single one of his posts of anything more than a commoner; someone who has adapted the personae and the etiquette and secretly feels some satisfaction in not being seen for what he is...or thinks he is.

I think he's internalized his social lessons and although he understands, viscerally, the other side he cannot help but be totally committed to the herd.
I would not be surprised if her were using multiple aliases to get away with his pretense and to unload his hidden self while never facing the consequences.

Revealing analysis.

Some people seem to come onto the web claiming to be free thinkers in search of knowledge, yet quickly find themselves a place within a structured hierarchy where they can ban, censor and control the opinions of others. Ironically, these are the very same people who believe they are on a mission to enlighten others, who uphold the supreme rule of exchanges remaining civil and feel it is their job to protect those they see as weak and innocent. They are usually the ones who set about popularizing their forums in an effort to get more members.

Quote :

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20 of 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.[1] It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research[2] and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.

Twenty-four male students out of 75 were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.

Quote :

Ethical concerns surrounding the experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former high school friend. Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.[9]

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

Judging by the role he took in the experiment and his later book - The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil - all Zimbardo's learning did little to enlighten him to his own nature.

Quote :

Please join me in a journey that the poet Milton might describe as making darkness visible. Although it is often hard to read about evil up close and personal, we must understand its causes in order to contain and transform it through wise decisions and innovative communal actions. Indeed, in my view, there is no more urgent task that faces us today.
- Philip Zimbardo

(He sounds like that giant of filozofy Cornell West)

apaosha wrote:

What's amazing is that they're intentionally asking for more rules and more restriction on what they can say and do.... in effect more protection from the consequences of their actions, rather than less.

On here, you act like a retard, you get treated like one. This promotes caution, because you might not like what gets exposed when you overextend yourself. On there, you point out retardation - you're punished.

They don't want quality. They want quantity. This is just more of the same.

What' amazing is that the Pav is now referring to "higher academia" as some consequence of all-inclusivity.

The term "higher" on its own denotes exclusivity.
The underlying premises here is that of taking the thought-experiment concerning the million monkeys typing away for billions of years and you might eventually get a Shakespearean play, to an extreme.
Magnificence or superiority or beauty as being purely accidental. the monkeys need not understand anything, but only punch away at the keys, writing a brilliant work of art but not being able to appreciate it.

The premise is that intelligence or quality is purely accidental, ergo it demands mass and numbers to come about.
Therefore, it does not matter how stupid you are or what inferior genetic stock you come from, you can still hope to become a genius or, at the very least, you can hope of accidentally birthing genius at some future time...with infinity as a presumption.
The past is totally ignored, because it throws a wrench into the premise.
If it were not then we should also include chimps in the voting process because they too might produce brilliance in time and their apparent inferiority should not be taken as reasons enough to be excluded...or discriminated against in any way.

It's based entirely on liberal thinking and the need to justify tolerating weakness.
Notice that in the notion of "higher academia" anything of genius is not assumed; the academic might teach philosophy or art but may be mediocre at it; he might talk about genius but is not himself one - his object is not present...it is analyzed as a thing of mystery.

To bring about masterpieces you must tolerate the masses of morons typing away inanities, so the argument goes...for Hawking is an invalid genius.
It's a counter-evolutionary premise: intelligence is a random effect not determined by anything in the past and so easily overcome with a few "educational" tweaks.
To ensure that more and more will type away you never tell these masses that what they are typing are, in fact, inanities.

It's hypocrisy.
The juggling act is about how to filter out the retards and the avalanche of worthless crap they offer without making it obvious.
They seek a distinction, a discriminating attitude to not be overwhelmed by the stupidities they allow, but they do not wish to make it too obvious because the illusion of respect and democracy and love and tolerance must always be the guiding rule.

This puts them in a bind.
How do they permit stupidity so as to find those gems in the shit and then how do they filter away the crap to better appreciate the gem by cleaning away the shit and allowing the gem to shine brightly?
How do they do that while retaining the self-delusion that they are for equality and how do they still pretend to respect all equally and value all similarly while not shattering the pretense to themselves?

You see, the retard d63 has contributed nothing of any value in any forum to my knowledge and yet there he is in the forefront of exclusivity and "raising the bar".
Anywhere else he would be ridiculed and laughed at, but there they must pretend that his desire to create something more "serious" includes him as a valued participant.

Allow me to demonstrate the lie by going back into the past.
This retard, d63 is against bullies and bullying, for obvious psychological reasons, right?
The only kind of bullying or aggression he can see or be intolerant of is man to man; he does not recognize the aggression fo quantities, or the masses, over qualities, or the individual.

For example, if one man dominates and takes advantage of another he is repulsed, he screams bloody hell and asks for justice...if on the other hand a mob assaults another with jeers and taunts and drives him off, he applauds...when and if this suits him.
We see the bullshit here most clearly.
Feeling vulnerable towards this hypothetical individual being assaulted he feels pleasure in his debasement and exclusion, on the ideological grounds that he is disruptive and potentially dominating towards the masses, or the average, he feels a part of, therefore any aggression against such an individual is justified since it both alleviates the source of his insecurity and ensures that the group will continue to be more "positive - even if in a hypocritical sense - towards him and his quality. Here is how quantity overpowers quality within controlled and enclosed environments - within artificial ones, in other words.

Within the contained and controlled environment of the Forum ILP a more ideal reality can be maintained, a sit is within social structures; more so in these abstract, internet, social structures because the element of the physical is absent and it is all mental or spirit at play.
Of course in the real world this is never so, because the physical is less apt to be enclosed to the same degree as the mental can - delusion and illusion and fantasy are examples of mental enclosures with no reference and relevance to the real world.
It is only when the real, the physical, is decreased in relevance that the mind can enclose itself better within a purely self-contained, self-referencing delusion.

Imagine, if you will, if you could enclose yourself within a Star Trek [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
The real, if it could be taken care of with technologies, would be totally free from the outside, real world - within the contexts and boundaries of this box an artificial reality could be constructed and lived in.
A social system is partially so...see Baudrillard and the self-referencing artificiality of the Matrix or simulations and simulacrum as he called it.

This is more easily accomplished within the internet environment, reflecting the social one, where even the obvious appearances of the others can be excluded from disrupting the illusions created.
The retard, d63, alluded to a secret desire to have them included with his comment about "hunting me down to find Satyr in a wheelchair".
He imagines me as something so base as to make his sense of inferiority manageable. He would discriminate and be cruel against me so as to ensure kindness and inclusivity for himself and those like him.

I experienced this when I was still acceptable over there on ILP.

I could be belittled, mocked, and assaulted personally, as a sexist, racists, by a pack of retards who found empowerment in their numbers, and nobody noticed a thing...especially not Fausty the douche-bag, but the moment I retaliated twofold and tenfold and did so successfully, the pack of retards went crying or Fausty suddenly began to see the rules being broken and an injustice being done.
Any thread I started was flooded with off-topic ad hominem insinuations and deflections and nobody noticed up until I retaliated or the majority began feeling the pain.
Then, suddenly, it was the very core and principles of the group, the forum, which was threatened and so Fausty, the douche-bag, intervened spreading justice evenly and reprimanding all the participants...most of which had fled after my retaliation began leaving me and one or two others to face the justice of the demi-gods.

When the sentiment of the majority are attacked and their feelings are hurt then it is justified if they should avenge themselves and bully the one who dared...but if the one fights back then it is HE who is the aggressor and the bully.
The message is clear yet never stated outright:
Say what you want just as long as less numbers are insulted than are; keep it within the boundaries of acceptable thinking.
If you do not then expect the majority to bully you into silence or ostracize you out of their Divine presence. If you retaliate, then it is you who is the aggressor and the bully.

All this in the hopes that amongst these dullards a genius in the making lurks half-asleep and buried is political-correct lies.

------------------------------------------

It's funny how the douche-bag, Fausty, is now content in indulging in mind-games of logic, all based on the premises of mathematics...the ultimate abstractions away from reality.

He wishes to escape in pure symbolism, where nobody gets hurt or offended or persecuted...particularly not him and his own.
1+1=2...let us forget about what 1 really is and let us see if the outcome remains true to the presumption...and for God's sake, let us leave out anything that might in any way make someone feel bad.

Pav123 loves this.
What can be better than speaking about African Americans, without actually mentioning Niggers or Negroes, with an African American?
Imagine how civil and proper it would be if you could state that Negroes were intellectually inferior to a Negro.
I guess DE-personifying the conversation makes it seem like a more sophisticated objective analysis is being shared.

Keeping out the other from an insult is like telling a duck that it quacks and that quacking is an indication of duckness which is a species to be exploited, to be eaten or simply enjoyed in a petting zoo.
It's that added layer of bullshit that legitimizes the conversation and makes it more profound.
Take Pav123...he implies, perhaps without realizing it, that if you respect and nurture and accept ducks into the fold that from amongst their flock something utterly delicious...no spectacularly brilliant will come about.
A gambler's ego. Play against the odds and then revel in the miracle that proves that man is not merely a product of need; a shot against determinism and the incoming chaos.
An evolution of the Judeo-Christian doctrine.


Fausty just wants to have fun and games with numbers. The more numbers the better.
It does not matter what a number is, its quality...all that matters is that it is a DE-personified, abstraction which he can pretend has no personal relevance.
More numbers, please...more and more quantities. Let us measure them with a simplification that remain undefined.

Pav123, the diplomat, loves rules. He will follow rules if they satisfy his emotional needs. he will follow any leader if what he personifies is supportive of his intrinsic, neeeeeeds.
Fuck!, he's tolerate dullards and protect them, if need, be, just as long as his neeeeeeed remains unexposed, like a wound, to the elements.
He'll indulge in exploring the elements if they promise that they will provide information to keep his wound safe and sound; covered up and out of sight.

Look at how many caveats he's offering to the retard, d63, wanting to keep him away only to be faced with "I luv ya man" - a drunkard lament - towards which he is forced to compromise if he is to remain true to his self-imposed delusion.
Have you heard a drunkard exclaim "I love you maaaaan"?
Did ya believe him?
Pav123 pretends to...because he's with them, but not against them.

Can anyone post this over there?
That'll be fun(y).
Think of the traffic it will get; think of the beehive in a turmoil.
All fun and games, boys and girls, until someone gets hurt.
We do not want anybody to get hurt, now do we? No, of course not, this'll go against our shared principles, which we have no share of emotional and subjective interest in.
Let us not hurt anyone, not even with honesty, because they might hurt....and then WE might hurt.
All selfless idealism.

Let us exclude anything real...like big bad bullies who fight back and smash our face, making us run to the principle for help; like the big bad world that does not give a shit about out shared delusions and ideals and desires.
Let us talk and talk, and be "serious" about it, because such ridiculous bullshit must be promoted into seriousness by those who intrinsically know how comedic it truly is.

Recidivist wrote:

Some people seem to come onto the web claiming to be free thinkers in search of knowledge, yet quickly find themselves a place within a structured hierarchy where they can ban, censor and control the opinions of others.

Some people want to set boundaries to thinking so as to excuse their own lack; the limit the other so that their own limitations do not become glaringly obvious.
One method is to cast aspersions of frivolity upon the other, by claiming the "higher ground" of "seriousness" or, as one institutionalized mind once called it "stringent philosophy".
"Stringent" in the latter case meant referring to an other's opinions and thoughts; a deferment to another.
Not a reference to the world directly but to another's conceptions of the world - a reflection on a reflection. The start of the simulacrum...or life imitating art, rather than the other way around.

This makes it easier..if one has in front of him a known "evil", that is a thinker who is famous and established then his "errors" have already been explored and provided for you by others.
No personal effort required; no challenge present...no threat.
Take Hitler or Nietzsche or any thinker or man of action who the commoner, the liberal dimwit, finds offensive, he is a more acceptable theorist because a response to him, to them, is already part of the zeitgeist.
You read a book or you do a google-search and you can find all sorts of answers to their challenging theories. These are preferable to the mind who comes free from even their premises and offers something a bit off slant.
The response was not understood, no more than the challenge and the challenger were, but a simplistic overview was offered in text or through a mouth-piece, such as a writer or a philosophy professor or some second rate antagonist thinker...and this suffices for the mediocre mind because, once more, numbers matter more than substance.
It is the fame and popularity of the threat which makes it worthy of a reply and it is also the popularity of the response to this thereat that makes it powerful, no matter its quality.

It does not matter what was meant or said but only that the outcome is positive to the majority.
Take the retard's d63 assessment or understanding of Nietzsche and how casually and easily he has been given a feel-good connection to Nazism.
See how easily he falls for the "blond beast" analogy connecting it to the eugenics of Hitler rather than to the fair haired Hellenes.
See how he takes the commoner's approach to the very idea of an overman, connecting it to some super hero or some domineering overlord the majority can unity in opposing.

Does anyone correct this retard?
Nope.
Does anyone uncover the lie or the error?
Nope.
Does anyone mock him for being so simple and dumb, clearing the space for more insightful analysis or helping him to evolve and to explore and to not make the mistake of speaking before he knows what he is talking about?
Nope.

This same retard is now insinuating himself into the upper echelon of ILP "intellectuals".
What outcome would one expect?

Recidivist wrote:

Ironically, these are the very same people who believe they are on a mission to enlighten others, who uphold the supreme rule of exchanges remaining civil and feel it is their job to protect those they see as weak and innocent. They are usually the ones who set about popularizing their forums in an effort to get more members.

When the only ambition of a forum or a group is to remain true to the common or to reflect the common morals and manners and ways of doing things, then nobody should expect anything different than what he gets by walking into a bar on a Saturday night: a bunch of inebriated, lonely, half-wits, trying to get laid, or high, and dispensing with puerile colloquialisms and recited witticisms, with a few "big names" dropped to make it all legitimate and shit wallowing away the time and asking themselves,. in the privacy of their own skulls, "What the fuck am I doing here?" and "What is any of this worth? What does it matter?"

You see this every so often expressed with a thread dedicated to the question:
"What is philosophy good for?"

Well, if we take the environment, the underlying motives, and the restrictions...not much at all, I would say.
What good is muscle if you enter into an arena where punching is prohibited, bleeding is frowned upon, defeating the other is considered evil and all are there to have a good time?
The arena is a lie; a context with no relevance...an excuse to gather in droves and shoot the shit while pronouncing each other victorious or strong, exiting the premises with the stated assurance that we are in this together, while in private regaling over some minor victory a pun or a joke offered.

Recidivist wrote:

(He sounds like that giant of filozofy Cornell West)

Now imagine if Cornell West came here as if interested in a genuine and honest exploration of reality, race being but a small part of it all, either declaring victory after a few skirmishes in which he got his nose bloodied or pretending to be interested in the "racist perspective" so as to better defend his egalitarian delusions.

Would not the first call you a "bully" after he had decided that he had defeated you, claiming it before a jury of his own peers and would not the other exit in silence, content in the self-righteous, knowledge that he had all his corners covered and that he had nothing to fear from the opposition because he'd figured them out?

Would either of them enter into open and honest confrontation, battle, with the opposition, or would they retire behind the walls they had erected to keep anyone who would shame them out?

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

James S Saint wrote:

apaosha wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

apaosha wrote:

Are you a christian, James?

Not technically. But due to my own knowledge, Jesus was correct.

In what way?

In the way that the universe works and is confined.

Add him to the list of retards.

The universe is confined between boundaries, walls, in this tiny mind.
He does not need to see them, he assumes and hopes and has faith that they are somewhere out there.

I'm not sure. He's extremely evasive about it, which implies something. But not something definite.

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

James S Saint wrote:

A god ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a given subject.
It isn't a god if it hasn't such authority.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be.

What controls you more than any other possible thing is your real situation.
Your "god" is the whole/"holy" truth of your situation, both the seen and unseen ("Mygod").
The God is the whole/"Holy" Truth of the situation of the entire universe and all within it, both the seen and unseen.

Thus you might often hear people say "God is Truth", and "God is unknowable (your true situation isn't entirely knowable at any one time) thus so as to not give up too quickly, have faith in miracles (the unexpected, thought to be impossible)".

And you often hear the anti-God cronies say, "There is no such thing as Truth", "Nothing can be known. And if it can't be known by scientists then it doesn't exist" - a bit arrogant, frankly... especially considering their own "Uncertainty Principle".

There it is. He's one of those guys who define god as the universe. Unnecessary anthropomorphization.

I thought he might be.

Given his definition then the past is essentially God who determines him.

His delusion about "truth" is telling.
Truth is a perspective not a thing.
Usually it is used as a substitute for reality truth=real when it is a perspective on a fluid reality which is always changing making any one perspective obsolete the moment it is formulated.

Truth also signifies omniscience, as one must know all that is to known immediately, and so it comes from a perspective of an God who is taken for granted.
An "outside" time/space which is another way of saying the non-existent.

Somehow in the "all" category God is excluded.
God can know all, including himself, whereas some may know all but not God entirely.

The Retard is a bit confused:
You premise the argument with the notion that something can be known that isn't true.

Also since God is not known and knowledge=truth then God is never true.

Ask him to define "situation" with no ambiguities...if he cannot ask him to justify why then he presumes the situation to be static if the situation is always changing?
If God is changing then He too is determined by the situation...to say that God is the detriment of himself is to say nothing.
It's circular reasoning.

Exactly, and very good points thank you. Though now he is trying to cover his ass by saying that that was not his definition. The man is an idiot.

Something else interesting, on one of Joker's threads about anarchy/rebellion/etc:

Kriswest wrote:

I would not rely on one way. It would be easily foiled. History points out that infiltration and working from the inside can be quite successful. Changing memes and beliefs is another way I would use. Start in the schools of the youngest and make it across the board from the poorest to the wealthiest. Set up a nonthreatening doctrine, that does not set off the parents, to teach the kids.
I would also use the internet and the entertainment industries. Clothing trends and toy trends will also work.
I am sure you and others can think of other ways also. We do not have to kill and destroy to make a change.

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

Compare this to the post-war period. Who and what used those exact methods and how successful were they? She may be on to something.

She's a dumb cunt...don't bother with her.
This leads to nothing interesting.

Interesting in that it accounts for how modernity in its present state was reached.

She's been influenced...not to brag.

Before she used to sing a different tune.

She has some sons. She doesn't like how they've been emasculated, is my guess.