Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

A woman offering her womb to the dominant male is worth more than her love and life, because through children, she offers another lifetime through the children she bears.  By children she is worth more than just one lifetime.  Through the female is a door, a gateway into eternal rebirth (ideally).  Thus a superior woman can offer a man, potentially, immortality (constant rebirths).

The are two expected and predominant forms of idealism in young males.

The first ideal is to escape from human-world and return "back into the wild". However this escapism has no realism as the young male has little-to-no actual appreciate, respect, or understanding of nature. Nature is cruel, hard, unforgiving, and a young male probably would (usually does) die from exposure to the wild environment. Thus a young male requires training and preparation to endure the objective "wild-world", best received by a father or surrogate father-figure. Only a man can properly educate a boy about the wild-world, objective-world.

Secondly, after the first idealism and escapism is addressed (wanting to "return to the wild"), the young male will develop a second form idealism which is Neurosis. In this second idealism, a young man will want to "re-shape" the modern world, human-world, into a "better world". This is called "progressivism" by which the young male re-imagines the world as a "better place" (for himself). It can lead to delusions of grandeur, or most commonly, as liberal-leftist-utopia projects. Young males are seduced by, often feminine, social movements, in which Neuroses of young men and women are blended together. For example, the hippy movement, counter-culture, environmentalism, feminism, humanitarianism, etc. all stem from this second form of idealism, the world as a "better place", utopian idealism.

If a young male is fortunate, intelligent, and educated with proper wisdom (philosophy) then he may move on from these childish idealisms, overcome them, and leave them behind, and begin to confront reality (wild-world) from either within the confine of civilization, or without.

In the previous centuries, explorers, settlers, colonialists, and other courageous men were the ones who truly "Progressed" civilization if any such progress can be quantified or at least, honored. Males "on the periphery" are always the ones from which geniuses are found, revolutions begin and end, or a scientific paradigm shift can occur.

Principles, being noumenal (and, usually, always incomplete) in nature, are not free. They come with a cost on the organism to maintain themselves (their behavior) against it.

The modern day Christian man is under the pressure of living up to both his Hellenic principles and the Abrahamic ones at the same time. It is the absolutist conception of these principles between which the European man is pulled back and forth. When he fails or refuses to substantially enforce or lower/weaken himself to help make the absolutist conception of his principle of fairness come about, he is accused of wickedness or deception, hypocrisy. When he fails ideologically to accept such absolutist principles of fairness despite circumstances maybe suggesting it to be unwise, he is declared stupid, ignorant, genetically unfit or weak.

Plato:

After reading Plato and his texts, my interpretation of his most important message and point, is that of Representations. Plato strictly, implicitly, and explicitly details, on several occasions, how Copies are inferior to Originals. Thus Plato, interpreted correctly, leads a philosophical mind to the appropriate conclusion. Reality is superior to (Youthful) idealism. Many are misled by The Republic because in that, Socrates goes into detail about the "ideal state" of Greek society, or humanity, as a "Utopia" where Justice rules supreme. This conversation extends from disproving Thrasymachus that Just societies were ruled through Might, not Right. Regardless of the ideal state, however, Plato's famous "Allegory of the Cave" is his strongest case of exemplifying how reality is superior (in form) than copies. And that mankind, noblest of men, would never suffice themselves to live lives on lies: "the unexamined life is not worth living". Even the Modern movie "The Matrix" *COPIES* this same message, re-interpreted.

The more times a thing or message is copied, the further it is removed from its source. Plato, obviously, knew this fact well. In The Republic, the conversation occurs to "ban" or remove many forms of art from the Utopian city, but why? What is wrong with paintings and music? If you understand the premise of the work then you will know that copies are Inferior to their original source. So Plato's depiction of a 'Utopia' is opposite of how Moderns conceive of utopia as an "ideal realm". Because by banning art, painting, and music, for example, you are removing the copies and false images that Modern society and civilization consume daily. In fact the Modern world is just the opposite of Plato's Republic, because Moderns are obsessed with digital art, movies, television, facebook, iphones, etc. Thus Moderns are consumed, and consume, Copies upon Copies upon Copies. And almost nobody, or perhaps nobody at all, have the penchant and personality (of Philosophy) to seek out the sources of these copies.

Plato's main lesson was to seek out these sources, originality, and to live as close to reality as possible. I believe that he knew, during the time of Decadent ancient Greece, that civilization and modernity would eventually make this difficult if not impossible. And this was his true lesson to the "Sons of Ariston" (Noble Class), to whom he wrote his works. Furthermore, Socrates becomes enigmatic. Was Socrates a fictional representation of the author (Plato), or, a real person and tutor of Plato? What was the relationship? And by using Socrates, observe that it would be yet another copy of a copy, that Plato was copying the dialogues, texts, and philosophies of another man. Thus Plato would be writing Ironically. To properly interpret Plato, these observations must be taken into account, especially by how Reality becomes divorced and split into Ideals. A painter observes a landscape, and then paints it. A musician hears birds, noises, melodies, and then tunes them into songs. Yet the Original is always superior, the true inspiration and source, of any subsequent ideal.

By properly reading Plato, a philosopher ought to know and recognize this.

Plato II:

Eventually Western civilization connected with Eastern, and the Buddhist monks are today's closest realization of Plato's work. Aspects of Buddhism and Eastern cultures took up the message of Platonism and understood that representations, copies, and idealism were to be rebuked, avoided, and confronted. Thus the Buddhist and Tibetan monks injected this philosophy into their lifestyles and lessons. The Buddhist monk meditates and avoids as many "copies" as possible.

Monkhood is about removing copies, "returning to nature", and staying as close to Reality as possible. However Eastern philosophies have perverted this concept with the introduction of "Nirvana" as some "absolutely peaceful" or perfect state of being. Thus monks have infused some forms of falsehood into their rationale. Because although removing idealism and all copies can bring you to peace, this is not necessarily some "ideal state" unto itself. It is not a favorable end "in its own right". Because although an individual may infact "return to nature" (Paganism), remove copies (falsehood) from his life, habits, and lifestyles, this does not another form of idealism. This is not how one "ought to live" necessarily. Because, in truth, there is no "perfect state". There is no "return from nature" once you have endured civilization, society, and decadence/modernity.

There is no going back!!! Despite all the copies, all the falsehoods, all the lies and misled lifetimes, despite the maze and labyrinth of modern civilization, even if you do in fact "return to nature", then what? What will you do, or could anybody do, afterward? Living as close to reality as possible, is advantageous, and it will bring a degree of peace/satisfaction/success in life. But manhood lives between Nature and Artifice, between Wild and Civility. Because man-himself is an Artifice.

Even genetically and biologically there are "Copies of Copies". Thus, even devoted to Nature and Realism, is not a deterrent. It is not a "final solution". And Nirvana is just another mythology, another inverted form of Idealism. Living as close to reality, cannot be another "idealism" otherwise it is a backward, reverted idealism. "Negative Nihilism" as is called here on KT.

Once the copies, ideals, falsehoods are consumed, by anybody, they cannot be forgotten. Therefore my proposal is 'Balance' between Nature and Artifice.

Consider the (Modern) child who is confined and trapped within walls of paintings, television movies, music, internet, iphones, and mountains of senseless data pouring on top of him. The child will, at first, be taken and consumed by the images, the copies of reality. But if the child is intelligent, and of pedigree, then he will eventually tire with the copies, the games, the phony and fake substance of them. He will grow restless, as if "in a dream he cannot awake from". And this is the plight of modernity and moderns, who, cannot ever awake from such a dream.

Trapped within a realm of copy, after copy, after copy, ideal after ideal after ideal. Reality becomes so distant, so abstract, so far away, that Moderns begin to deny whether it ever existed at all. "The world (humanity) is only 3000 years old." Isn't this what religious abrahamists claim? But re-interpret the term, "world". Which "world" is only 3000 years old? Existence-world? Or human-world? You can now understand why and how Abrahamists, Nihilism infects people as to re-interpret (pervert) the idea of "world" as human-centric. So what they mean to say is the "Human-world" is 3000 years ago, meaning, the age of western civilization.

Moderns cannot think "Outside" such walls, the limits of indoctrination.

Education has become exponentially rarer in Modern times, and throughout civil history. Because "Education" is the exact *OPPOSITE* of indoctrination. Indoctrination is to teach children lies and feed them endless streams of copies, never allowing them to touch the real thing, or to introduce dangers that have real costs (potentially deadly). This is how the modern disease of "Autism" has come to exist, and other anti-social behaviors as well. Solipsism increases, preventing moderns, children, from ever being 'Educated' and become aware of Reality/Objectivity.

Instead the masses and populace are kept rather neutered, and have been made to enjoy and 'accept' these comforts for thousands of years. The danger of abundance, decadence, and hedonism. A danger that the Romans endured and eventually resisted against. From the Roman Empire and times of greatest decadence, Occultism and resurgences of paganism occurred to re-connect some Moderns, with potential, back to their roots.

Remembrance:

Past cannot truly be forgotten, only ignored, and only for so long. Because biology, body, genes, are all the recurrence of the past.


Intelligence and courage is required, by the modern child, to first perceive the copies of copies of copies, to comb through them one-by-one-by-one, as a Great Mystery, back to the source. And once the source (Reality) is re-discovered, to confront that, endure it, and use it as the strongest foundation, to think, to believe, and to live. All other foundations are inferior, weaker, airy and soft. 'Reality' is the strongest platform upon which to propose any preposition, to begin any belief.

Only once "Truth" is returned, back down to reality (nature/objectivity), can it re-grow to its fullest extent.

These are the cycles of life.

It seems to me now that all my debts and mistakes have been paid for double than what they were worth.

Do you have double standards?

Oh
My
God

Or... do you have universal standards?

Double standards, as in treating different groups differently.
Like cats and dogs.
Cats and tigers.
Men and women.

No, no, of course not.
Double standards as in treating the equal, the same, according to two different standards.

So how do we know that they are equal, that they are the same?
Because I say so! ...I guess..

If they were actually equal, the same, then I wouldn't even be able to recognise the pattern of the double standard.
Paul likes this blue shirt.
Hm, but he cuts this other blue shirt into pieces.
Guess he's ambivalent to blue shirts.
I mean, they look all the same to me.


But, but, the same and equal is not the same, eh not equal ...whatever.

In the German language there is a popular thinking error which people like to point out.
Two people sit in a restaurant and the waiter brings one of them a Schnitzel. The other guest tells the waiter - "Bring me the same!", to which the waiter replies, "I don't know if he will be fine with me taking his food away, to give it to you.". The other guest groans and tells the waiter - "Bring me the 'equal'."

In German the word 'das-selbe' (the same) is different from 'das Gleiche' (the same).
The one word means literally the same, not a similar one, nor one which is equal to it, but literally that one.
While 'das Gleiche' would translate literally to 'the equal'


So back to the English language. What does it mean to be equal?
Besides some autistic Platon ideal vs. real faggotry, equality is about a sense of fairness which is dependent on the subjects in question.

When I order a Schnitzel in a restaurant and I then look over to the next table and see that their Schnitzel looks maybe a bit more tasty, a bit larger or a bit more evenly fried then I could interpret that as unfair - maybe even as a deliberate act of the restaurant because they don't like me. I could go all paranoid about it. Of course, I won't complain or even think about it if I get the better Schnitzel, that would then still be fair. Maybe even deservedly so because I am such a great customer who doesn't yell and tips reasonably well. That must be the reason, or so I could tell myself.

I think the sense of fairness came first and later equality as in making the same became the central element in the sense of fairness.

I can treat men and women very distinctly and still have a sense of fairness.
Double standards implies that one ought not to have two different standards.
I think one should definitely have two different standards when dealing with two different things.
And if they weren't two different things then how could we recognise two different groups and standards applied to them in the first place.

You know an argument with somebody is unproductive if during the course of it you notice and correct your own mistakes in reasoning more than your interlocutor.

The midget boisterously presents himself as great, wonderful and honorable. He declares himself the equal to the modest giant. Everyone agrees "Yes, you are equal in valor and strength."

The giant is offended by this.

No one can understand why: "Why don't you believe he's equal?"

The giant, still modest, does not want to appear too boisterous but replies "He's just not as strong as me."

The crowd of others take in a shocked breath.

"Wow. You are obviously hateful of this man. He is just as valuable as you. How dare you?"

The crowd's face turns twisted "Obviously, you are the real midget. You are the weakling. You must hate on this person in order to feel good about yourself."

A border when two neighbouring communities are at peace.
It can also become a front(-ier).

When I say there is something one should do, or I should do, am I prescribing for all or just myself? Does my 'ideal' benefit myself or everyone? When I say "society should criminalize homosexual behavior" am I saying that it benefits 'peace' or that it benefits my conception of 'nobility'? Am I advancing a universalist framework that takes humanity as its 'universe when discussing morality'? Could it be, instead, that I am declaring my own values - and presenting you with an ultimatum or appealing for their adoption? Could it be, that I don't think values are 'objectively out there' when discussing them?

How often is 'objectively out there in the world' confused with 'being present in or to the benefit of humanity/society'?

I would like to see an adamantly Positive and Negative nihilist both attempt to explain the interaction between two honorable opponents and the sorrow one feels when he defeats the other and the joy of the one who is defeated. I imagine, in their attempt to countenance the interaction within their framework, they will talk in epicycles, adjusting as needed when their calculations are a little bit off and then declaring themselves as having successfully countenanced it. That is, until the next 'hiccup' happens. Much like the Ptolemaic model justifying its geocentrism with massively complex epicycles:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Very beautiful. Like a Peacock's tail... Only it becomes twisted and demented at the slightest exposure to an unflattering truth - demonstrating its unhealthiness. That is where, like/with any system of order, it then turns to violence as its solution.

You'll see the same behavior in modern racial science, constantly asserting there are some 'unknown' factors accounting for racial differences in IQ. Whenever debunked from that difference being countenanced, they move the goal post. Today, it stops at the idea of 'cultural differences' which are not scientifically falsifiable.

The idea that the world is pleasant or nice, that there are no dangers outside the ones caused by European Christians, is a fundamentally Christian idea. It is based on the idea of original sin and God punishing man. Likewise, the faith that everything will be okay comes from the idea that God loves everyone and the world is His expression of that love.

[note to self, battery low: I suspect that Christianity demands or made people originally vulnerable to having a sort of narcissism just for it to persist.]

The benefit of selling pleasing lies to a populace is that when you screw up, people are much more willing to accept your excuses.

Riastradh wrote:

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

Thanks.

The biggest threat to the manifestation of equality is supremacy and inferiority. In the pursuit of manifested equality, it is easier to burden, attack and degrade the superior than to lift up the inferior.

--

A healthy, intelligent and masculine male, capable of creating a distinct genetic and memetic hegemony alike, is the biggest threat to a system of equality.

Socializing is Dancing:

Sometimes it's smooth, and this "smooth" dance by which both partners have fun, and people around take notice and appreciate the dance, and envy the skill of the performers, is RARER. Because dancing is an artform and practice. It is not done well immediately, but through practice and development. Any good performance of life requires such practice and payment (investment) of time. And so 'smooth' social interactions are obvious by how any individual, or a couple, or GROUP (like an online forum) has paid and invested such time already. Hierarchies form, and performances are practiced and repeated, and eventually become popular by the skill of their performance.

Socializing, online or in the real world, are no different than this. And the skill of the "Socializers" (like politicians) are on public display. And it is a dance, or a song, or a public performance.


But the ones doing it the best, solo, or together, or as a coordinated group, does not occur sporadically and randomly, but over time, a rhythm develops, and is maintained, and is appreciated.

Any 'smooth' performance is the result of years of mistakes, countless mistakes, embarrassments forgiven, shame accumulated, overcome, constant practice, that led to the development of a "final act", something mastered, a skill developed and matured, come into its own right, the difference between an adult and a child, or a master from a student. All skill, all greatness, is predicated on loss and mistakes, avoided, overcome, and compensated for.

As opposed to the 'jagged', rough edges, awkwardness, sharp, tacky, and "cringworthy" socializing of somebody who lacks the confidence of experience, makes a fool of him/herself, constantly.

This applies to sexual copulation as well, the awkwardness of two young lovers who both lack experience.

I do not remember where the idea originated from or whom it was attributed to, but it was the idea that "Writing something down effectively kills that which was wrote." I recall it being about the preference for oral traditions over writing. It means that writing with no uncertain terms (uncertainty being that which is inherent to the process of orating) kills the idea. Language, words, phrases and stories may become increasingly atomized.

Divine justice, experienced by a warrior in his victory, has been killed in the same way by religious authorities that deal in absolutes, instead of flux. The Abrahamic religions, which deal in bicameral fictions, assault the integrity of our rationality which tells us we should reflect and question that which we see. As a solution, it proposes we blind ourselves.

Mark 9:47 wrote:

And if your eye causes you to fall into sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

Effectively, it is presumptive simpleness disguising itself as 'clarity'. When ever there is an objection, one only need to continually rationalize, projecting outward the problems which are actually inherent to their ideology.

One can't believe in the devil without also believing in God.

Any order(ing) which arises out of chaos is an offensive dis-order(ing) to the presumed absolute order behind the uni-verse.

Any uncomfortable order(ing) is projected as an offense to (all creation/reality), because the harmony required to persist within the neural/belief/noetic 'uni-verse' of the subject's mind. They must always believe they are good and intelligent.

Everyone is supposed to share their idea(l) of having no culpability, of their being victims. Their essential identities wrapped up in the same idea(l), which all of reality/flux is an offense to.

Galatians 3:28 wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Fear, that reality is not benevolent, not for-giving. One enslaves their cognitive abilities to the promotion and maintenance of the idea(l). Any concessions made to 'evil' are only out of necessity. It is only for demonstrating under-standing the plight of an-other, where the other would otherwise reject their siren's call.

Alexander Pope wrote:

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Misery loving company; sharing in their 'wounds' and the call to correct them. If they are going to sink, perhaps they can gather enough bodies around them to keep them afloat, until opportunity arises for them to get their 'fair shake' at acquiring power.

The hidden, manipulative, backwards, way of telling the weak they are better than they perceive themselves to be is to say to them that the strong are not as strong as they (the weak) perceive them to be.

To impale the healthy on their blemishes, misrepresenting the healthy as saying they are 'perfect' or 'the ideal'. The cynicism which comes from a bicameral, nigh autistic, conception of hierarchy/standards.

They only need to keep pushing on the chink in the armor, to collapse the whole hierarchy. This is where 'free speech' becomes a risk to state and national governance. The freedom of the weak to drown out truth with lies, with numbers.

Slaughtz wrote:

I do not remember where the idea originated from or whom it was attributed to, but it was the idea that "Writing something down effectively kills that which was wrote." I recall it being about the preference for oral traditions over writing. It means that writing with no uncertain terms (uncertainty being that which is inherent to the process of orating) kills the idea. Language, words, phrases and stories may become increasingly atomized.

Divine justice, experienced by a warrior in his victory, has been killed in the same way by religious authorities that deal in absolutes, instead of flux. The Abrahamic religions, which deal in bicameral fictions, assault the integrity of our rationality which tells us we should reflect and question that which we see. As a solution, it proposes we blind ourselves.

Mark 9:47 wrote:

And if your eye causes you to fall into sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

Effectively, it is presumptive simpleness disguising itself as 'clarity'. When ever there is an objection, one only need to continually rationalize, projecting outward the problems which are actually inherent to their ideology.

Matthew can be relating here what I can only say ironically is The third eye.. btw, Note how he only spoke of singular eye..

not as The mind or some spiritual eye..
as what most rational today would naturally conceive the former as something symbolic or.. what fantastical others unironically believe the latter as An eye..and not just from lack of a better word, but in both cases.. perception.. and sure.. thinking..

I also think I understand your rationalization..
As if blinding your one of two eyes would change anything in the fact..and.. whatever is left.. or right of the sight..  of the matter..
Only these people could think something like that.. because it's right there in their ideology itself..

It's a very rational rational..and maybe a cynical one.. [or maybe I just think that because I'm cynical.. Got that NP all over ME..] which could be used again in the service of rationality... but only if it were to be used as it was before.. skeptical.. because it is now mostly... analytical..

You got the more subtle point of it, I'm assuming by following along and your presuming a consistency between the lines. I could not phrase it well, so did my best. You did a better job at it, I presume also expanding upon it in that more recent post of yours.

Using your elegant phrasing: The conversion of skepticism to analyticism. Analyticism as a replacement for skepticism.

When an infant, then child, then teenager, grows through his/her entire life attempting to earn respect, but always failing in getting it, then slowly but surely, that lack of respect turns to contempt, which eventually turns to nihilism, and ruins internal pride.

Entitlement

entitle (v.)
Meaning "to bestow (on a person) a rank or office" is mid-15c. Sense of "to give (someone) 'title' to an estate or property," hence to give that person a claim to possession or privilege, is mid-15c.; this now is used mostly in reference to circumstances and actions.


Today, I think it's used mostly as an angle of attack. When somebody talks about an entitlement then the implicit assumption is that it is undeserved because of equality etc.

Likewise you defend your social privileges by not demanding them but by implicitly stating them.
"I am weak and cute and a nice person." (Therefore I am entitled to protection.)
"I am oppressed." (Therefore I am entitled to special considerations to make me equal.)
...
"Look at me I am selfless and advocate for the oppressed. (And btw. I am one of those oppressed as well.)"

Someone once wrote something along this line -
"The world (meaning the social environment) treats you not in regards to your merit but in regards to your demands (what you feel entitled to)."

I am thinking that this has to do with conflict avoidance. Those who treat people according to their demands do so because they want to avoid the hysterics and the bad blood and instead give in to the demands because they seem trivial.

Why do they give in? Because they are not equipped for hysteria warfare. Punching is not allowed but bitching is and ratting and so forth is allowed.

Yes, I think behind every entitlement there is an implicit threat. One with social, hysterical and/or physical consequences.

"I am smart" - entitled to being believed/freedom from criticism of intelligence
"I am pretty" - entitled to freedom from criticism on looks

All of the threats could be true, though. It takes the interpreter/target to determine the truth hood and weigh the costs/benefits.

Today, the issue with SJWs is they are "tolerated" because accusations of racism or sexism can damage you, even if false. The entitlement to toleration comes with the implicit threat. Their power is saying that the threat doesn't exist or is justified as "free speech" or "truth".

It ceases being toleration, but submission or capitulation. They say that your capitulation should be, instead,  believed by you to be toleration. Making weakness a strength. Saying it is capitulation implicates you into being the very thing they would have accused you of. And calling you racist or whatever comes at a very small price comparatively to the damage done.

-edit: So, not only do they threaten against it, but demand that your capitulation be displayed as opposite to what it is.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] -Samuel Roth

Anfang wrote:

Why do they give in? Because they are not equipped for hysteria warfare. Punching is not allowed but bitching is and ratting and so forth is allowed.

It's a female lobbying strategy: you nag and nag, incessantly bitch and complain, to the point where you wear down your man and he eventually just gives in to what you want. The Left agitates for it's politics in this manner... as well as the other group.
The correct response is to suppress this behaviour and to never get exhausted by it.

Æon wrote:

When an infant, then child, then teenager, grows through his/her entire life attempting to earn respect, but always failing in getting it, then slowly but surely, that lack of respect turns to contempt, which eventually turns to nihilism, and ruins internal pride.

I was going to write on that too. Except I would not say "surely".
Its the turning point that differentiates the mature spirited from the immature.
Where the mature sees the unjustness, the immature sees in it injustice [as in, as though justice were something apriori].
The immature lacks the courage to accept his limitations and grows resentful.
The figure of Ajax is also fitting here.
He goes psychotic being denied proper recognition in his fair contest with Odysseus.

In the modern setting, 'Discrimination' can easily become a pretext for hoarding and withholding due recognition because the levellers cannot endure the sight of the another excel, while at the same time, its also an error of judgement to expect social respect to supplement or complement self-respect, when society itself has become inverted with the weak and trash on top and the strong at bottom…
This faith in institutionalized respect is what's created the alpha-beta-omega labels.