Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

Satyr wrote:

I'm not like Nietzsche...I was not thrown off a horse, serving in the auxiliary; I will not hug a horse, protecting it from its master's whip, before I collapse.
If I intervene, at all, it will be in order to take the whip and beat the 'master', within an inch of his life....before I am taken to prison.
I would not cavort with a Jew and a wench, who will choose him over me; I would drive her unto his circumcised penis, way before any pictures and playful displays witnessing my impending mistake.

I do wonder if in a hundred years some naive female/boys will find your words and hold you up to be more than what you actually were. Honestly i would find it insulting, especially from a female, there are likely several men like Nietzsche who have likely crossed ways with this woman whom she would never glance at.

Yes, i know... gene/meme disharmony... but at least more airheaded women aren't as insulting to your legacy.

Only a base man would want to be admired for what he is not.
I always found compliments and flattery uncomfortable.
I neither give them nor receive them with ease.

I prefer antagonism and being under-estimated. It gives me a challenge that helps me grow, and an advantage I can exploit. But the challenge has to be accurate and not a misunderstanding or a wilful misinterpretation of my views. There's nothing to be gained from the latter.

Nietzsche "tragedy" is how his memory was treated by those who admired him and wanted to be him - or his inheritor.
May the gods protect me from my friends, because protecting myself from my enemies I can do myself.

Distinction is correlatedly meaningful to the enormity of scope of indistinct similarity it is compared against.

In a dying society,
how could you not be suspicious,
why would you not be suspicious,
of anything which becomes popular?

Society dies as its populace dies,
first spiritually,
gradually then physically.

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

Quote :

Otherwise, existence is described, indirectly at least, as a merry-go-round upon which innocent, helpless, children play, for an eternity. A joke.

To say that someone is helpless is to say that they cannot solve their problems. If the universe is completely determined it does not follow that people cannot solve their own problems.

Strict determinism and responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

Quote :

What meaning does Darwinian natural selection have in an absolutely determined universe? Nothing is really being selected, at all, according to these morons. Everything has already been selected.

It has the same meaning it has in the universe that is not completely determined.

Again: if the universe is completely determined it does not follow that there is no such thing as natural selection.

Quote :

Accountability for everything you do and/or fail to do, is difficult to swallow.
It is preferred to describe one's self - indirectly, and covertly, if not openly - as a victim, a helpless, innocent, victim of circumstances.

Strict determinism merely asserts that there is a strict causal chain: for every effect, a cause. It does not assert that there are no causes we can identify with. The motion of my arms is the cause of this post and this motion is caused by the activity taking place inside my brain. Whatever is caused by what takes place inside my brain, we say, is caused by me EVEN IF what's taking placing inside my brain is caused by something other than me (e.g. my ancestors, the environment I live(d) in, etc.)

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Strict determinism and responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are, taking responsibility requires being open to the costs and benefits of any acting, something which strict determinism denies through its imposed singular end.

It reminds me of the modern state we live in today, where our sheltered environment is for the most part "determined" in accordance with the rules of the state. You can say people have a "choice" with regards to their actions and whether they are rewarded or are thrown in jail but responsibility is made meaningless as ones life is never put at risk in such a box to the same degree as in the open cosmos...

Magnus Anderson wrote:

It has the same meaning it has in the universe that is not completely determined.
Again: if the universe is completely determined it does not follow that there is no such thing as natural selection.

It makes that selection into a joke, selecting Path A or Path B is meaningless if it leads to the same Determined End C.
The same end that all of existence is determined to collapse to as a result.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

It does not assert that there are no causes we can identify with.

Of course not, just like how you can identify with different political parties today within the modern state.

The way Anderson describes and defines "determinism" is in agreement with my own positions on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
That is, that what has been determined is the past, and that an agency, such as a living organism, participates, in the present, in determining the future, i.e., that choice is a participation, to whatever degree, in determining, in the present, what will become the determined past, in the future.
But this is not how Nihilists define the concept.
For them even choice is illusory and already determined, inserting us within the contexts of Biblical allegories, using different terminology.
What is "sin", after all, but another way of describing accountability before absolute cosmic order, alluding to a totalitarian one-god?
Moderns simply shift semiology, and re-describe the same conundrums, produced by their absolutism.
In Old Testament narratives man's "free-will" is described as insolence against universal totalitarian order, producing the paradoxical question tackled for centuries: how can man, made in god's image by god himself, be held accountable for what he was made to be by god?
This conundrum was resolved with a sleight of mind technique, inventing a pseudo-free-will, as "evidence of god's love for man", and man "breaking god's heart" by challenging his absolutist rule.
Moderns are convinced they've overcome and progressed out of Abrahamic, or nihilistic conventions, when all they've advanced from is the lingo, progressing out of anthropomorphic imagery and into pure abstractions, which rely on obscurantism to sustain the same paradoxes.
Vagueness replacing god's gifting man, because of his "love of man", free-will.

The same outcome is attempted: absolution, innocence, salvation from the immutable determined and determining past, which many rightfully rename causality.
In secular nihilistic contexts, all is determined, including man's choice, or reaction, to what is determined, so the act of choice is really illusory and pre-determined, or part of the causal chains that "enslave" man to absolute order, i.e., god.
If, in fact, order is absolute, then this is a logical conclusion - if god, in other words, is omniscient and omnipotent, then "sin" is nonsensical, because man cannot contradict absolute hegemonic totalitarian power - absolute order; everything happens within absolute order, and in accordance with it.

The only way free-will, and with it the risks and costs of exercising it, can be rescued from the totalitarianism of absolute order, is through the "tensions" produced by an opposite to order - denial of its absolute rule -, i.e., chaos, leaving metaphysical fissions in which man participates in a a cosmic emergence - like lava emerging from the bowls of the earth, hot and liquid, gradually solidifying.
An allegorical way of describing the ever-present, presence of interactive existence. It is ion the bubbling hot lava, of the present, where man, along with every other living organism, participates in cosmic creation with his every choice and action. It is in this state of "liquidity" where man's choices contribution to his fate, to whatever degree of significance, equal to his power, or powerlessness.

Degenerates, using themselves as an example (sympathy/antipathy, not empathy), cannot help but understand "free-will" as "freedom" from personal accountability - a continuous blaming of others - when, in fact, it is the opposite - an accountability, even in the face of another's duplicity.
Man, a true man, holds himself, primarily, accountable for not perceiving the other's duplicity, and for being naive enough to believe in absolute goodness, or in believing the other was honest - to himself, first and foremost.
The most gifted deceivers begin with self-deception - ergo, those who deny "free-will" do so by accusing it of what they are most guilty of, i.e., evading personal accountability, preserving a victim status, seeking innocence as a way towards salvation, from themselves and their own inherited past, and their own choices in the past.
Free-will implies that the individual holds itself accountable even for the actions of others - having failed to predict and to prepare for them; having failed to perceive and to adjust self in relation to their possibilities.
Free-will implies, for the honest mind with some integrity, an acceptance of responsibility for knowing and understanding other.

Magnus I said the exact same things in the Free-Will thread, he either just doesn't get it or pretends not to.

AutSider wrote:

Magnus I said the exact same things in the Free-Will thread, he either just doesn't get it or pretends not to.

Hasn't it been determined if I will "get it" or if I will or will not "choose to pretend not to"?
According to you lads, it has. I am entirely innocent...a victim of causality.
Or am I?

Astrology is how a feminized psyche comprehends behaviour. A precursor of psychology, and astronomy, it represents a primitive form of understanding human behaviour, especially sexuality.
Notice how astrology only seems to apply to one species – the one that can be affected by symbols, such as language, and all that they insinuate on a conscious and subconscious level. Feminine psychology prefers intuition and vagueness that implies complexity and mysticism.
For example, they call the dissipation of lust, which they call "love," as a loss of "chemistry," or a "growing apart," or some other vague reference to reasoning which lacks all reasoning.
A woman's "mystique" is another example of how a lack of self-awareness is converted to an indication of something ideological – spiritual – a reference to mind. A female mind thrives on insinuating – flirtatious – incoherence, implying something deep and mysterious and despise all explanations that demystify, exposing the primal sources of their idealistic façade. This allows them to ply their natural agencies while covering them in mystifying innuendoes.
As primal agencies they channel nature's order/chaos, surrendering to it, without needing or wanting to understand – but only to feel. If we consider the effect of self-consciousness on performance then a female's performance, her act-ivities, are made more effective by not being fully aware of their motives and meanings.
Like when a woman explains why she wears garments that expose her sexually as not looking for sexual intercourse but as an expression of her immediate taste and preference.
Studies indicate that females choose more revealing outfits when they are in their most fertile phase of their cycle, something they will deny, or refuse to even consider, because it would reveal a subconscious motive to what they consider an "innocent" expression of character and spontaneity. To know this would make their choices less spontaneous and so their sexuality less fluid and graceful. They need to remain ignorant of the underlying motive in their own behaviours and choices.
To put it another way, their mind/body synthesis is dominated by their body – physicality – and the mind is only participating to justify it in accordance with the prevailing environmental circumstances, such as cultural and social norms.
In many ways a female is more in-tune with nature because her body is a manifestation of this past – nature = sum of nurturing. She simply intuits and feels, guided by her body's reactions and impulses – her gut feelings.
Superstition is part of this. It clouds the motives with a spiritual veil of innuendoes and semiotics, so as to lose sight of the motive... the body's reasons and judgements. Any intervention by the lucid mind – self-consciousness - would inhibit her performance and make it less natural; less graceful – less feminine.
The reason for this feminine proclivity can be traced back to her sexual role, as the sex that must endure the approach, intervention and gestation of an alien entity, necessitating the evolution of specific physical and mental methods to override her fight/fight reflexes. The suppression of lucidity and reasoning appears to be a necessary factor.
For males the opposite is the case, because for him understanding and lucidity facilitates his own role as the one who must be found worthy – thinking “outside the box" and from the vantage point of a stranger – in relation to group dynamics – enhances his ability to gain an advantage over competitors.
Feminine minds have always been the primary “victims” of astrological hucksters and of superstition peddlers, in general, they are also the gender prone towards religious worship, or any belief that is popular and dominant.

The geek, nerd, dweeb community is uncoincidentally integrated into the LGBTQJEWFUCK+ community. The ones who felt marginalized, excluded, bullied, ridiculed, during those formative years of childhood when psychosis takes root in the cruelty of children's taunts, now carry that pain as a badge of proud exclusivity – we live in an age where nerdiness is cool. Un-culled genes synthesize into unpredictably monstrous outcomes, which are mostly uncool, by natural standards, and can only survive in urban environments, where the natural dynamics have been warped by human interventions.
For some this is a good thing. Nature, unrestricted by survival concerns, such as fitness, may produce something strangely wonderful, but they forget that the chances are that that one "amazing" synthesis to be produced, a million degenerates will have to be endured for a long time.
Nature found a quicker way, called natural selection, which streamlined the trial & error method using female sexual choice, for one, predation, and genetic drift.
As these masses of freaks multiply uncontrollably, they will unavoidably be faced with the prospect of socially and sexually competing with those who are the product of more stringent selectivity, increasing their sense of inferiority, social awkwardness and undesirability.
Economic stratification will be replaced with genetic stratification, expressed through life and fashion style, music, art, sexual identification, and a slew of other victim-groups who will become this New Age's proletariats.

At times I think that society changes far too quickly, with the rise of disruptive technologies and moral changes.
But really, I think it's just that what has come to power is founded on the destruction of the host society. So it's not changes itself, it's that the changes which are being implemented have the purpose to disrupt the host.
For example, the whole economy is built around psychologically messing up people to make them buy, use and consume self-destructive technologies, at least that's what the goal is. On the one hand it is usually not disputed that production of goods is mostly geared towards making them cheaper, to improve the margins, why not also create a consumer which is being conditioned to embrace the cheap, the easily produced. Why only lower the quality of the product, also lower the expectations of quality in the buyer.

The disparity is between genetic/memetic evolution.
Technologies - externalized genes, i.e., memes - evolve faster than genes.
Humans find themselves in a world that alienates them from their own physical presence (appearance) and impulses (instincts), and then desperately seeks alternatives to substitute this loss.
That's when they become slaves to technologies/techniques - the market.
Money becomes the Messiah, purchasing salvation.

This alienation seems to have become not a byproduct in the pursuit of things like power or affluence but a desired effect. The pollution, the weakness and so on have become a means to establish and keep a mimetic paradigm in power which enables certain (((elements))) to dominate.

Parasitism is a very effective survival strategy.

Alienation is akin to zombification. When infected a host loses touch with reality, with the world around it, and begins behaving in self-destructive ways.

An individual defers to another thinker - using them as a mediating icon/idol - to imply knowledge and understanding he cannot bring to bear, for if he or she truly has an advantage of being inspired by greater minds then this would be obvious through his arguments.
A higher understanding, derived through personal effort or through some mediating icon/idol, could only manifest in the individual's own reasoning, without having to refer and defer, other than as a way of paying homage.
Only the insecurely vain refuse to show some degree of gratitude towards those who have contributed to its development.

Having said that, the fatigue factor and a show of indifference is easily forthcoming.
At which point other factors contribute to evaluating the motive and the veracity of a claim - the performance is not only about what the performer intends.

To put it bluntly, an individual who is proud of knowing the Old & New Testament inside out, will not have to refer or defer to Scripture, but only as to further validate what it believes is an advantage over the ones who have not read Scripture or have not understood it as well as he claims he has.
The veracity of his superior knowledge and understanding of Biblical text will be obvious, because he is now a representation of this knowledge and understanding.
Deferring back to the bible exposes an insecurity, concerning the claim itself. the individual wants to believe he is inspired by the bible because he's understood it best, but is afraid that he may not have understood it as well as he hopes, so when cornered he defers back to the text, implying that he understands, what the other will understand upon reading it.
In my experience those who defer and refer, with no personal insights, are those who pretend to be what they are afraid they may not be - fear of being exposed - because if they truly knew and understood then they, themselves, are now what channels the wisdom, to the audience.
The individual becomes the representation of his understanding of the bible, or any book.
So, if this book's wisdom is superior then the individual's wisdom will reveal this, without having to defer to the text itself, other than, like I said, as a way of paying homage and of exposing the source, refusing to take personal credit for it.
Those who read books absorb the content and integrate it into their own way of thinking, which reveals what is known and how it is understood. Deference, is a way of evading this, if it is not accompanied with an exposition of the implies knowledge and understanding.

Do you know how many imbeciles have claimed superiority by challenging me on my knowledge and understanding Nietzsche?
It's as if verbatim recitation of his aphorisms, using the proper lingo, and having the proper citations somehow proves that they are his true apostles.
Just like Christians think that being able to quote from the bible and knowing book and verse, somehow makes them good Christians.

It's ironic when a member of the "herd" exposes itself, while trying to appear as if it does not belong to it; or when a cruel vain spirit tries to prove how altruistic and pious it is, while acting in ways that contradict its claim.
Gene/Meme conflict exposed through actions in relation to convictions.

The dissonance of degeneracy is delicious.

That's why I say "read the action, and stop listening to the words", and by 'action" I mean the act of deference itself.
Like when you meet someone who tries to portray a well-connected, worldly, sophistication, by constantly name-dropping, or implying how wealthy and established he/she is.
The act itself, contradicting his/her intention, or, at least, exposing an underlying factor rendering the intended one moot.
Because what does such a mind want you to know about him/her?
That he is acknowledge,a accepted and appreciated.....when this is not what he/she believes about himself/herself, and that's why he/she desperately wants to convince you of it.

The Kardashians are an example of the "cult of celebrity" pushed to its absurd limit. An image-based, franchise, selling wealth and elitism with an underlying slave idealization to the masses of mind-slaves aspiring to become the idol of elitist adulation.
No talent required – only a cultivated appearance and clever marketing, which can be easily purchased.
"Cleverness" being a measure of how effective something is, in relation to the objective and the means – in this cases the quality of the target audience, i.e., the average disappointment with her life choices housewife and homosexual victim of natural selection finding pride in flamboyant “in your face” vengeance, or the average nine-to-five Joe looking for inspiration and a brilliant iconography to live vicariously through.
Even the choice of Kardashian mates reflects an idealization of the rags-to-riches narrative – progeny of ex-slaves finding fame & fortune through "hard work" sexually cavorting with privileged females – conduits to an inheritance they did not earn, completing the circle of the product that is being packaged and sold to the mediocre masses.
Nothing too sophisticated is required – details are lost in the spectacle of luxurious gossiping, and the lifestyles of the rich & famous.
Sexual undertones, not only in Bruce Jenner’s “coming out”, after years of “blissful married life”, but in the selection of mates, to replace “him”. A once celebrated European-male athlete.
Need I go into the details? It’s a guileful way to promote miscegenation, without being overt about it. It’s all done subconsciously – through the most primal sense, i.e., sight.

I'll have....some of that.

The guy (Rossmann) is heavily pushed by Youtube, at least he gets inserted into my recommendations all the time.

Pushed or not, perfection, the partner of 'absolute', is the means which cynics use to accuse others of hatred because they reject the same flavor of nihilism they do, or any flavor. The accusation that (by cynics) they're weak in comparison to their idea(l), and they're only challenged out of envy for their piety to or wielding of that 'absolute'.

Hm, I think it's good to begin with small things early because you need the experience. Learn and get better by doing. Also, you get better at what you are doing, not better at something you think you would like to do later in your "career". So, for example, if you work as an unpaid intern, you either quit being an unpaid "intern" or you will eventually get good at being an unpaid intern.

A Citizen Kane for incels lul:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Imagine the hilarity of some boomer sergeant explaining the incel phenomena to his soliders.

Quote :

The incel extremist movement will manifest anonymously and leaderless, self-organized explosions of pent-up virility. Nothing can stop the bitter nothing to live for NEET from actioning on his nihilism if only for a weaponized memetic identity, one kindly provided by journos.

The shootings will continue, and they will get more sophisticated. The manifestos will become more eloquent, more inspirational, more viral. Kill counts, how primitive, will give way to social disruption, financial damage. Why shoot children when you can take down the internet?

We all know American infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to lone actor attacks. Bringing down radio towers, roadblocking major highways, cutting off the internet, the powerlines, can all be accomplished alone, with minimal expertise and no scheduled materials. Who will act?

Free-radicals are a by-product of lack of investment in the future.
Monogamy was supposed to solve this.
Now they use emasculation, promoting feminization across the board.
Hikikomori is the future.
But things will change before it goes too far.

I recall Stardusk and his MRA....way back when this shit was news to most young males.
Stardusk and Barbarossa...
I told Starry that he was promoting values that lead to his "men going their own way" - he was and is his own enemy.
Like feminists. Maybe there was a latent homosexual agenda, 'cause I can't imagine anyone being so retarded...with such a deep voice.
When I told Barbie to apply his logic to racial inequality, it brought out his African aggression.
Barbie made fun of me and my "wage slavery"....so I asked him how he made his living.
I was banned from his you-tube channel. One more banishment to add to my collection.
He was either a gangsta, or one of those bad-boys, selling street-cred, while smokin dope creating cRAP-tunes on his Walmart beatbox and keepin' it real from the comforts of a suburban household.

They did milk naive incels for a while.
Maybe they still do.
It's an easy living.

This Greta thing.. it turned into a energetic meme-farm, at last the whole world gets a glance at that special brand of swedish autism.

Quote :

"EAT BUGS"
"LIVE IN PODS"
"DON'T MAKE BABIES"
"STOP FLYING AND DRIVING"

...or else we'll live in a dystopian hell hole

Stagnation is the goal of many religions (Heaven, Nirvana, etc).
The human ideal is Stagnation.
Without climate change, nothing needs to evolve or adapt.
Climate Stagnation is the mastery of Heaven and Earth. It's the Platonic form of Eden.

All this discussion about preventing global warming and never about what to actually do about it when it occurs.
The only place I hear about the actual benefits of it is Russia.

On the topic of climate change I, once more, fall somewhere in the middle.
Yes, the cycle of global warming is natural; yes human interventions are exacerbating and accelerating the process.
As with all "positives" there can be found, in them, a negative, so too in "negatives", such as climate change, one can find a positive.

The only reason I seem "negative" to most desperate degenerates, is because of the naive idealism and inherent in their "optimistic perspectives".
But this has been implied through the description of the Nihilistic paradigm, in particular of the extroverted variant [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Positive Nihilism's ideology is optimistic and always offers some hope to majorities - the mediocre in spirit - but its premises are founded on noetic constructs - linguistics, semiotics - that refer to nothing but to more text, and other ideas, and never to reality and phenomena, i.e., its "optimism" is dependent on ideological fabrications and manipulations which can easily find ready and willing followers (adherents, believers).
As desperation increases the level of resistance to the absurd decreases. This is why during empire collapses, as the one under-way, we witness a rise in superstition, occultism, messiah peddling, and the mystical, delivered on a metaphysical platter applying the fine-arts of surrealism and obscurantism to seduce the emasculated spirits who want to be 'swept off their feet' and live/experience the extraordinary, the magical.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

It makes that selection into a joke, selecting Path A or Path B is meaningless if it leads to the same Determined End C.
The same end that all of existence is determined to collapse to as a result.

If the consequences of choosing path A are the same as the consequences of choosing path B, then yes, it makes no difference whether we choose path A or path B: the outcome is the same. However, strict determinism is not an idea that states or implies that all paths lead to the same end. Rather, it is the belief that we can predict the state of the universe at any point in time with perfect, one-hundred-percent, accuracy given that we have sufficient knowledge of the past. You can have a completely determined universe full of paths that diverge from each other.

It is fatalism, the belief that our decisions (either some or all) cannot shape the future, that is incompatible with personal responsibility, and even then only some versions of it (such as the one according to which not a single one of our decisions can influence the future.)

Roughly speaking:

Fatalists:
What happens in the future is UNRELATED to what humans do in the present.

Determinists:
What happens in the future is RELATED to what humans do in the present, but also, what humans do in the present is RELATED to what happened in the past.

Free-will proponents:
What happens in the future is RELATED to what humans do in the present but what humans do in the present is UNRELATED to what happened in the past.

Satyr wrote:

Hasn't it been determined if I will "get it" or if I will or will not "choose to pretend not to"?
According to you lads, it has. I am entirely innocent...a victim of causality.
Or am I?

Either you are a victim of causality or you are a victim of chance. Either way, you're a victim of something. And it is said you're a victim because it is thought that you're in a bad situation. But causality does not imply victimhood. Causality can make you a victor just as much as it can make you a victim. The same applies to chance. You can be a victim or a victor because of what happened in the past, but also, you can be a victim or a victor by chance i.e. for no reason at all.

As to what has been determined, that is largely unknown. Maybe it has been determined that you will never get it, meaning that our attempts are futile, assuming that their purpose is to open your eyes; but also, it might have been determined that you won't get it until someone comes along and explains it to you.

Whatever way you look it, the logical contradiction you seem to imply is simply . . . not there.