Forums

All things are done at the approval of the alphas. For example, the feminization of males in general is approved by most of the alphas, being that it makes their position more secure. Though in modern days, actions are more ideologically driven than by direct orders.

The beta males in the scientific community, encompassing almost as high a percentage among them as beta males in the general population, declared, at the behest of ideology long in effect from alpha males of the past and approved by most of the current, that the terminology of beta male and alpha male is invalid concerning men. It's weakness compensated by numbers. But, the numbers of those scientists are relatively small in comparison to the vast numbers of beta males who take joy in their comforting declarations.

Basically, it's the weak leading the weak, and in that the leaders are betas males, their followers would better be called omega males; men so weak minded that they have to rely on slightly less weak men to protect them from the truth.

Let's encapsulate...

My appearance is not who I am....but what I own is.

Therefore, I would prefer to buy women, to have sex with me, or attract them using things I purchase, or can purchase, rather than by how I look, or how I act, or how I am, as determined by my genes.

Yes...it makes sense now.

If I go through my thesaurus and find some real cool sounding words that sound intellectual, inserting them into a sentence to imply that I am smart when I am truly stupid and insecure about it, does that make me clever, or am I another desperate hypocrite?

The uniformity of reactions to the stimulants of particular words informs us of a shared memetic foundation and the accompanying techniques associated with its defensiveness.

The split of Islam and Christianity from Judaism, did not alter the shared ideals and methods of relating to self, others and the world in general.
In secular humanism we find the same Marxist presuppositions that then expose Marxism as nothing more than a secularized Christianity, connecting us back to the choseness and the victim identifiers of Judaism.

The universality of this particular nihilistic meme evolved slowly by casting away all the components that made it stringent and exclusive.
As it shed its worldly connections it became increasingly idealized, pure idea(l) - meme with no genetic foundation.
The nihilistic inversion begins here.
From pure meme, detached from the gene, it then moves towards a genetic realization, whereas all other memes are the continuance, the extension of genetics.

The inversion is also found in its preferred mode of reasoning, the top<>down method, where one begins with a conclusion and then works backwards using experience, empiricism, to justify it.
There fore sex and race are non-existent superficial factors and the reasons will be found later, when human interventions suing techniques and technologies will make them inapplicable within the human systems this desired conclusion will bring about.

Sensuality is slandered and dismissed as an error, for reasons yet to be fully understood.
What applies to nature and other species does not for humans, for reasons yet to be fully understood.
Love is magical and the solution to all human woes, for reasons yet to be understood.
Humanity is uniform in potential, and species are produced using natural selection in ways not comprehended presently.

Validation is postponed for later, and ignorance becomes part of the validation, in the same way the christian God is mysterious and incomprehensible, which makes Him all the more real.

The list goes on.

Evidence of this can be found on-line and how the same (re)action is observed when specific ideas come-up in a conversation.
The first reference point being Nazism and Hitler, which was nothing more than a manifestation of paganism within the constricted politics of "cult of personality", making Hitler the poster-child of pagan ideals, for the foreseeable future, for the average Modern, despite his many errors and the shallow expression these world-views took on through Nazism.

Evola offers an insightful critique of Hitler and the Third Reich explaining his own rejection of Nazism and why that form of nationalism was doomed to failure.
Despite this the average internet mind cannot approach certain ideas without them going through Nazi Germany as the representation of these ideals, or Nietzsche as the intellectual they associate with them.
The ideas go back for centuries, and connects us back to a pagan, naturalistic world-view, but indoctrination has made them forever linked to these more recent reference points.
Their merit becomes a debate over World War Two and subsequent post-war victorious ethics, which includes images of the holocaust and the horrors of war.
One now approaches these ideas through the prism of the inherited 'cult of victimhood' and modern nihilism.

Phoneutria wrote:

"My case is for civilization. And civilization does not exclude the possibility that one man or a group of man be in power, it merely stipulates that the weak are to be protected for a very good reason*, and therefore it puts limits in the will of individuals.

*That by protecting the elder, the women, and the young, we are able to ensure a continuous transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. Knowledge being more valuable than strength."

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

-

Sauwelios wrote:

"I think phoneutria, too, means that impositions against people's wills are needed for the sake of society. My counterquestion, then, is: Why is society good? My answer to this question is: Because there can be no philosophy without society. It may be helpful to consider that I identify the philosopher with Nietzsche's superman."

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


-


Note the cart before the horse illogic at work there.

Satyr wrote:

"If the masculine spirit is what challenges and resists and opposes, then science and philosophy and creativity can be seen as manifestations of this spirit.
Declining masculinity means declining intelligence, imagination, creativity, thinking outside the box, confronting the world, not surrendering to it, questioning authority and ideas etc.

Now look around you."

If its masculinity and the male spirit that characteristically stands apart, dominates, discriminates, distinguishes itself, competes, creates that pathos of distance, breaks limits, raises the bar, shifts horizons, opens new grounds, opens ranks, which is what Philosophy entails, then the development of philosophy depends upon the nurturing of the masculine spirit. Culture is birthed by philosophies.

What good is a civilization simply passing on things when there is No Culture to pass on to begin with?

Needless to say the chicken/egg relativism doesnt apply here, as even if there is no inheritance, nothing received customarily, even the most disinherited person with a masculine spirit can begin philosophy from scratch and as it should be even when he's the beneficiary of a custom. But in the latter case, when this spirit is not nurtured and feminism wants to stunt it and throw the whole baby with the bathwater, extinction of all culture and creativity and evolution is what you risk.

"Knowledge is more valuable than strength"?

But knowledge IS strength.
When we, I, speak of masculine superiority I do not only mean physical strength.
I mean intellectual strength, analytical strength, spiritual strength...not simply data storage, or regurgitating info, like a computer, but understanding...which is the finding of patterns within the knowledge, the data, the info.


"Because there can be no philosophy without society?"

Then any society will do?
Is there a philosophy in an ant-colony, in a bee-hive?
Is the Islamic system to bring about the next overman?
Is Christian society just as good as any other for Nietzsche?

So, Nietzsche philosopher/overman can be a Mullah, a Rabbi?
The only prerequisite to being an overman is to be able to think and have the leisure time to formulate a world-view?
Was Nietzsche overman Saul, later to be named Paul?
Really?
The answer is leisure, coupled with energies evolved through time due to strife, struggle, agon.
All men have a philosophy, as all men live in a society and have constructed or, most likely, have adopted, a world-view.
Then why this "over" man, when all men are philosophical, to one degree or another?
Nihilism is a philosophy, are nihilists overmen.
No!!!!

The feminine spirit here cannot resist patting itself on the back.

Overman....the man who has overcome resentiment of himself, his self-hatred, the bitterness towards his own condition, after he awakens to it.
An overman has overcome the hatred, the emotion, of his own temporality.
Not making excuses, or trying to find ways to escape the inevitability, the necessity of his own temporality, his own temporary existence and the need/suffering it entails.  
This overcoming will be felt as a power all men will recognize.

THAT is the overman.
Not some muscle-bound super-hero, not some brooding thinker that can think any idea, and propose any ideal, not some dominator of women and children.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is how the true spirit of the other is exposed, when big words and intellectual blathering takes second stage.

This "man" deserves a "goddess" and Lima is not up to par...not for him or the shit-Stain, who has purchased prettier whores with the money he makes.
The shit-Stain's standards are so high he finds Lima's thighs not quite on the level he is accustomed to.
As a buyer, inverting the male/feminine roles, he demands more from the product he will spend money on.
He is proud of his purchasing power. They are with him, despite his genetic failings, and yet this does not bother him.
he's come to terms with his inherited inferiority, and is making up for it within the market economy.
Money the great emancipator, the secular humanist's salvation from primordial sin; the sins of the father absolved with a few bucks.

So, if a woman is sub-par, yet has the spirit of a goddess, this turd will reject her on the grounds that he deserves better.

The other turd, remaining child-less, demands the highest female standards for him to have a child with her, uses this to explain why he still remains unfit, within the evolutionary scale.  

Why?
He's evaluated himself as such.
He has valued himself, using no standard other than his own emotions, and his ego, as deserving something far more than this.
Later he will speak of narcissism and arrogance, like a christian does when claiming that he deserves a God and Paradise and eternal life, but remains humble.
No objective standard which would make him sub-par and out of this woman's league, so to speak, but his own conviction which he now transmits, suing words with no reference points, to an audience he wants to include in his self-referential arrogant and narcissistic delusion.

As pathetic as listening to a stupid bitch saying how appearances do not matter, then finding justifications as to why the tall, handsome man, is also funny and charming and intelligent...because he makes her giddy with moisture.

The bullshit, Modernity produces, piles up.
If it were not for the smell one would almost think it was a stairway to heaven...or an ascent higher.
But Satyr has a strong nose, and prefers to plant seeds in manure.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is how censorship begins to justify itself.

Notice, this turd never intervenes in any other thread, unless things get beyond simple sniping, but here, he magically appears, as always, to impose the civility clause, setting up the events for him to later lock a thread that hurts his feelings and contradicts his bullshit, cowardly, world-views.

What is also pathetic about this thread is how a moron intervenes to post pics of war imagery, as if war is never ugly in all its forms or whatever the values being fought over, as if losing your life for any cause is not noble, as if all "victims" are the product of one evil doer, as if hunger and suffering are not byproducts of the chaos war brings about.

And this emotional appeal in lieu of any understanding or reason.
Another imbecile who "understands" ideas by how they make him feel, or what imagery, words, feelings they've associated with them.

Shall we post pics of retards to explain what modern sheltering looks like?

This is what Modernity with its protection of weakness, and its promotion of principles that propagate unfit mutations looks like...


...because along with indoor plumbing and soft silks, we have a pollutant, a byproduct not so soft and pleasant...or, perhaps we can have indoor plumbing and silk without this.


Maybe this "War like No Other" has its own ugly side.


And no "eye of the beholder", bullshit can make it go away, because if this is beautiful to someone then so are those image of the dead and the emaciated.


I bet, some of the liberal minded women, and men, out there would have no trouble fucking these guys, because, they might be charming and kind, and may know how to play the violin or something.
They will, of course, use some excuse, like "we have no chemistry" or "we are not compatible" or some crap like that to explain why in theory they can profess what they contradict in practice.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the kind of hocus-pocus bullshit these un-cult-like nihilists think like.

The hormones only affect the body when it matures, and only once in a while.
No, hormonal effects during gestation.

The male/female sexual specialization is an "illusion" proposed as a question.
The idea has been inserted into your mind in the form of "innocent" skepticism that will later be reinforced with more doubt.
The cultural environment has already repeated this doubt, so its not much of a leap.

The mind has been prepared for the insertion of anti-nature, anti-reality, idealism.

Sexual types are learned, says one of the imbeciles.
So, my attraction to females, and the behavior associated with the masculine role, is all part of socialization.

Potentials determined by genes is an evil idea, because it imposes the past as an unchangeable factor in the present, and modern "freedom" and "individuality" needs to think of identity as something purchasable, something you can pay a bit of cash to be trained in.
It also plays into the anti-racism delusion.

Nothing natural is to limit humanism.
Nothing from the past will decide an individual's potentials.
All is equally possible....and what do we call the absence of a limiting probability?
Chaos.

This only applies to humans, of course, because when pushed to its limit, suing its own "logic" and its own principles, then we can train a monkey to be a human.
Intelligence is simply the repetition, parroting, imitation of data, information. Training being education. One can be educated to compensate for inherited limitations by using imitation, regurgitation, knowledge presented verbatim, or in accordance to the cultural, memetic norms.

Dress a female in men's gear, give her a masculine job and nothnig of masculinity survives.
And these same types will claim that appearances are superficial.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the chimp says the usual "Beauty is subjective", and we all clap because then we can feel good about any damn way we look. 

"Subjective" is the Modern's great equalizer.  
Then we can disregard symmetry, health, productive fitness, and focus on the vague notion of a spirit, which is not the sum of our past expressing itself in the present as character, but some mysterious Christian thing, which is immortal, all humans have it, not animals, and so it can be imagined as all good and all beautiful.

If everything is subjective then all judgments are equally valid...and so no superior/inferior.
Evolution stops.
There's nothing to select...it's all luck.

Much ado about nothing...

Value Ontology on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] barn.

Now this is either a rearrangement of words to make it seem like something profound is being said, like changing self-affirmation and/or self-assertion for self-valuing, or it is some crypto-Judeo-Christian hypocrisy, trying, once more, to integrate Nietzsche into Nihilistic Modernity.

The self need not love itself to act in a way that maintains self.
The processes and behaviors requires to self-maintain are automated, through genes.  
A plant need not value itself, or love itself or be conscious of itself to struggle to survive. this struggle IS the self.
An amoeba need not consider itself worth preserving to fight for its life - this fight, this agon IS the self.

No self-consciousnesses required in consciousness.
If anything self-consciousness becomes detrimental to survival when it reaches a certain level and the organism frees itself from the necessities of survival to a degree where it begins to question itself.  
It's why genius and madness are not that far apart; it's why bigger brained organisms reproduce less and have a harder time justifying their existence and their desire to replicate.
Idiots have on problems of this sort...it's why Dysgenics is an issue when sheltering prevents culling from erasing the unfit and the stupid.
It's like saying self exists only when it acts...but acting and existing are tautologies.
There is no existence without activity.
Existence IS (inter)action.  
There is no self without action. The act is the self manifesting in space/time.

Valuing is always a comparison.
All value-judgments are juxtapositions of otherness.
How would a plant self-value when it has no awareness of self at all, besides the need that drives it to value, to judge, to will?
The valuing IS the plant expressing self, its emerging unity.

Consciousness precedes self-consciousness, since self is discovered as another otherness, beginning the process of self-awareness, and self-knowledge.
The organism need not know itself to act on its own behalf.
The act is not an addition to the self...it IS the self.

The only sensation the primitive organism has is need, which is the sensation of self existing.
It evolves awareness of otherness so as to judge, to discriminate, to evaluate.
The senses are outwardly focused when they first emerge as tools of perceiving otherness.
Knowledge of self is not a requirement at this point.  
It need not value self to evaluate otherness in relation to its own needs.
Valuing IS self expressing its need, just as acting IS the self expressing itself, just as thinking IS the self acting.

There is no self there awaiting to be valued, or to be acknowledged.

It is when self-consciousness emerges when the mind can juxtapose self and other, and evaluate, judge.
This is why suicide is only possible when the brain has reached a certain level of self-consciousness.
Only then does it value self in comparison, in relation, to other.

This VO is a chicken-soup for the modern invertebrate spineless masses.
A way to justify the belief that no matter how you compare you MUST value self.
A symptom of self-consciousness becoming aware of its quality in comparison to other, in a world where sheltering has propagated unfit mutations and weakness.

To cam that I am valuable just because I say so is a hypocritical way of avoiding the standard of the indifferent objective, so as to believe in whatever soothes you.
Of course all should make do with whatever they've inherited and are, but to declare yourself equally valuable, or valuable in any context in relation to another, just because you say so, prevents you from progressing, improving, or developing alternative methods, or compensating traits.
Another perspectivism bullshit escapism, for a world dominated by a majority of spineless twits.


And in regards to this bullshit Rational Metaphysics (RM) based on the ideal of absolute certainty, absolute knowledge (omniscience)...again what a bunch of Judeo-Christian crap that is.
There very dynamism of reality makes the absolute a fading prospect.
All patterns and the laws that they are described through by humans, are no less fragmenting, altering as everything else they are describing.
That they hold true for periods of time/space sufficient to bring about life and the patterns/ordering they depend upon, is an ephemeral lingering remnant of the near-absolute singularity we refer to as the Big Bang and/or God, as this almost completed Being (Big Bang), which, if it has completed, would have made us impossible.
It is BECAUSE the singularity never completed that we enjoy existence and can contemplate its nature.

What we have over on ILP is the continuing debate between Judeo-Christian religious fanaticism, using science and reason to justify the same old bull, and secular humanists, trying to escape nature, the two moderns variants of modern nihilism.

One wants to allow God to enter from the backdoor, and the others comes up with clever ways to make natural selection less vicious and unyielding.
The absolute is my standard, says one...we are all valuable, replies the other.

Shall we prey?

Are these douche-bags serious?

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


The ILP religion of symbols?
Quantification.

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

Are we witnessing the emergence of the next Nobel winner, or another gathering of the insane, and those obsessed with symbols?

ILP....the gathering place of mathematical genius, discovering the hidden secrets of existence?

Insanity?
The modern obsession with semiotics reaching its culmination in numbers worship?

Please tell me this is a joke, someone.
Anyone?

We have one claiming to have solved everything and is now holding infinite knowledge in the palm of his hand... then we have two morons working in unison reinventing will to Power, by rearranging the words, to make it into a New Age self-help message that sells "just believe you are precocious because you say so"... a few cunts claiming men are like women,, because ti feels good to think so... a few dozen that deny appearances matter and that believe male/female is a lifestyle choice, and a social construct.... a boy who spent months blackmailing and threatening people he does not know because nobody will be his friend, and is now a Nazi... a superficial vain nothing, who thinks buying pussy is amazing, and although he is a "genius" he can't really prove it, and none of those whores he buys with drugs and money will have his children......a bunch of turds who deny objective reality because EVERYTHING is subjective, including beauty, and so nothing can disturb their masturbation...an outcast who goes around imitating Satyr, trying to be him... and, finally we have a few imbeciles who have just awoken to the fact that the universe is, conveniently, a hedonistic palace, and they've been invited to an orgy there...or are they still sleeping?

Yeah...I would say that things are trending on ILP.
As usual.

All inclusion means:
If you are an imbecile, and arrogant because nobody will call you an imbecile to your face, then yo can come over and make any absurd claim if....IF it does not sound sexist, racist, or homophobic, and IF nobody is hurt by it...unless he is one of those racist, sexist, homophobes...then you can slander, insult, threatened and you will never be banned.

Satyr wrote:

Are these douche-bags serious?

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


The ILP religion of symbols?
Quantification.

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

Are we witnessing the emergence of the next Nobel winner, or another gathering of the insane, and those obsessed with symbols?

ILP....the gathering place of mathematical genius, discovering the hidden secrets of existence?

Insanity?
The modern obsession with semiotics reaching its culmination in numbers worship?

Please tell me this is a joke, someone.
Anyone?

You mean that you disagree with the numerical being miscontrued as the mathematical, the artifice as the phenomenon, the thing as the thingness.

A number is a symbol, like the letter.
It is the product of on/off neurological processes....systole/diastole....1/0.

All symbols do is represent the noumenon which is an abstraction (simplification, generalization) of the phenomenon.

First came the word and the word is God, has become in secular humanism the number system, the binary system.

Satyr wrote:

Much ado about nothing...

Value Ontology on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] barn.

What we have over on ILP is the continuing debate between Judeo-Christian religious fanaticism, using science and reason to justify the same old bull, and secular humanists, trying to escape nature, the two moderns variants of modern nihilism.

One wants to allow God to enter from the backdoor, and the others comes up with clever ways to make natural selection less vicious and unyielding.
The absolute is my standard, says one...we are all valuable, replies the other.

Shall we prey?

Right.


1.

James Saint wrote:

"RM:AO vs RM:VO
The primary logical distinction between AO and VO is merely the chosen definition of "existence". AO is focused on "what has affect" and leads to "what can I affect and by what means", presuming that one would want to affect anything in any particularly chosen direction. VO is focused on "what self-values" and leads to "what do I value and by what means can I ensure such value", presuming that one wants to ensure such valuing in the direction of ones self.

So the "serpentine difference", the difference in emotional temptation, involves the current emotional state. Someone who is over burdened with pressure to value other things more than ones self ("oppression"), will sense a cathartic elation in the revelation of VO. And that person will become more self-focused and capitalistic, which generally leads to both good and bad effects depending on their ethics, education, environment, emotional stability, and/or morality.

On the other hand, someone who is over burden with ineffectiveness in a chaotic world will sense a cathartic elation in the revelation of AO. And that person will become more knowingly effective in accomplishing his aims, which also can lead to both good and bad effects depending on all of those same issues as VO.

So the total difference is firstly the epistemological perspective, secondly the direction of presumed concern, and thirdly the psychologically tempted direction of resultant action. The state and era of society determines which situation is more likely to occur at any given time.

RM:AO appeals to those already trying to exercise domination and merely want to know how to do it more certainly. RM:VO appeals to the oppressed dissenter who already wants to "bring down the hierarchy". RM:AO teaches the God-wannabe why he can't be the God he wants to be. RM:VO teaches the dissenter how to more emotionally resist the God-wannabe's attempt to dominate all things.


Where the two meet is at that understanding of the universe's demand for Anentropic Molecularization. The universe is formed into molecules for a reason, not merely a happenstance.

Anentropic Molecularization, unfortunately, is required by the universe for complicated reasons. So the real questions become; "How does one convince the oppressed dissenter to cooperate with his small molecule when self-interested dissenting is all he really wants to do" and "How does one convince the God-wannabe that his aspirations of being God are futile when all he wants is to be that God?"

There are really only two approaches; logical appeal and emotional appeal, "RM:AO and RM:VO". Logical appeal is simply a matter of coherent logical construct. Emotional appeal is simply a matter of "Perceived Hopes and Threats" or "Perceived Values".

The problem is that either can be taken as merely a deceptive attempt to promote the opposite of what is wanted by the subjects, either the dissenters or the God-wannabes. How does one guide the blinded while being perceived as a deceiver? The thought that invariably some to mind is "You are just saying that so as to promote your agenda".

So my approach to the situation was simply to wait to be asked. But of course, most are not asking or listening to anything, but rather merely doing exactly what they accuse. They are saying what they say merely to promote their own unwitting, obscure, and ambiguous agenda. And are seriously not interested in being proven wrong. Thus progress by that means is very slow to start, but has a serious upswing in momentum at a specific point on the curve.

Why would anyone sincerely ask about how to get to a destination when they don't even know what destination they really want, and especially if they want for a destination different than the answer is going to reveal as their only rational choice? Their Perception of Hopes and Threats IS going to lead them away from accepting such an answer.

So what is required is to cause a Perception of Hopes and Threats that inspires the acceptance of the answer. How would one do that? Well, how about with a demonstration that appeals to self-interest? Both the dissenters and the God-wannabes are self-interested. If you demonstrate how to gain something like money through a specific process, both would sincerely want to know how it worked and why.

The problem is that the dissenter wants to know how to do it all by himself and the God-wannabe wants to know how to do itonly for himself. And that isn't really a problem unless the demonstration involves an element of cooperation and/or altruism. And that is a problem only because of the issue of how to get it set up as a demonstration before anyone is convinced that they would want to see it. No one cares because no one yet believes in anything more than what they already see. And that is why in the beginning, it is so very slow.

The demonstration involves a team of people who have been sifted from an enormous number of people who just happen to have Perceived Values that match with RM Logic. Once the demonstration takes place, nothing more is required as nature and reality takes its eternal and natural course.

Realize that the very first life form came together from that which was not life. And the very first "Sentient Anentropic Molecule" must do the same, from those who were not a team. Look what came from that first life form and imagine what must come from a true sentient anentropic molecule, a "sentient anentropic team".
Perhaps I should mention that there have been at least six notable "teams" in the past who have done this same thing with enormous lasting impact upon the world. But each of those had one small element missing in their design; Ahdam, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Science, and the US Constitution. There are others more hidden, but those are enough to see the point. Each had their tiny flaw which eventually led to corruption and demise.

What RM offers is merely the means to stop leaving something out.

VO is largely concerned with self-valuing and AO is largely concerned with particlization. Both can explain the limits of such concerns. But in order to realize the limit of self-valuing, one must examine the affectance of overgrowth and undergrowth. If one is only concerned with self-valuing, one eventually becomes the emperor that is short lived as the empire falls. So the self-valuer in order to be true to himself and not overgrow and eventually perish, must focus upon what affects his self-valuing inherently produces. Instinctively they do this to a degree anyway and that is why they hide to form conspiracies, inside trading, monopolies, and public manipulation of every aspect of living.

The conceptual emperor is merely focused upon trying to acquire more by any means that seems to work. The only problem is in his ability to "see what actually works" in the long run. And that is an issue of "grasping beyond one's reach" or "over extending ones actual authority". What the emperor thinks is that as long as he can manipulate it, he has possessed it. What he doesn't see is what is going to take place merely because he tried to possess it, even though he knows to hide his efforts so as to minimize being caught. But one cannot hide from reality.

Particles form due to inherent competition of efforts inherently clustering together. But note that physical particles stop growing. They do not expand to consume the entire universe. Why not? The emperor would.. if he could. When a particle gets too big, it falls apart and becomes smaller particles that don't grow so big. Thus they are stable for literally billions of years.

But all particles are not alike. It doesn't really matter why because it is the fact that in their own self-valuing nature, they keep separate from each other and prevent the very thing that the emperor wants to take place, "all under one domain". The Greek "city-states" are an example of molecularization rather than massive particlization. Each "particle" self-values and refuses to become merely a portion of a large particle. Yet they still inherently work together. They form a molecule, a construct of different self-valuing particles that function together to form something physically larger and more versatile that one larger particle. Distributed intelligence vs central intelligence works that some way.

So how do we know the limits of self-valuing such as to know when to STOP acquiring more? When is "enough" just a little too much? To answer that requires an examination of the affects of having too much under one roof. If handled properly, the entire collection of self-valuers becomes exceedingly sophisticated in its capabilities while remaining stable and anentropic. Each little molecule need only focus on its own needs. Inherently the enter collection of molecules collaborate without being told when and how. Reality decides the best higher form of Man, not some ape with a computer.

I define consciousness as "remote recognition" because that is not only what consciousness does, but also what it is. It is the process of recognizing "outside" affectants and that is all it is. If anything can do that function, it has consciousness. It is like saying that something has spin. The spin is not a thing that is possessed, but merely a function or process of the thing. There is no more to consciousness than that, despite the very many people who desire for it to be much more. But it is merely an issue of bringing a word into definable terms. The mind as a whole does far more, but the part called "consciousness" is merely that one part of all that is going on and is a pretty small part of the whole.

When a person is asleep, they are not conscious of outside affectants and thus are not conscious. As you mentioned, there are also types of inner consciousness; dreams, imaging, introspection (self-consciousness). And on deeper levels there are countless types of these segregated consciousnesses occurring often simultaneously. A consciousness is subjective, relative to its own portion of mind.

Any time an inner representation of an outer affectant is utilized in reacting, consciousness exists. And that happens on many "levels" as well as "areas" of the mind and brain. If we want to actually make progress in this field, we must create defined terms that might or might not directly relate to what the masses or professional psychologists recognize.

I really prefer to build the psychological model from the foundation of potentials and affects, just as with physics. But in the case of psychology, the potentials are not electric potential, but rather the two polarities of "Perception of Hope" (positive potential) and "Perception of Threat" (negative potential). The analogy from there on out to RM:AO:Physics is pretty coherent and consistent. This builds a mind from the bottom up, revealing the entire nature of anything called "consciousness".

By definition, any part of a mind that perceives a hope urges toward that hope and away from any perceived threat. Unfortunately most minds get so confounded that they misperceive and presume erroneously.

The universe "starts" with total altruism that causes propagation that causes particlization. Propagation and particlization can be labeled "self-valuing". But being born into a highly self-valuing chaotic mess means that one must play the self-valuing game in such a way as to exponentially increase understanding up to the point wherein he sees that the greatest and strongest self-valuing state is almost total non-self-valuing, altruism. The end state is almost identical to the beginning state, merely rearranged, functioning at a higher, more sophisticated level.

The future need is about the highest possible probability of eternal joy, not something one expects to perfectly achieve, but merely to keep balancing toward so as to get the probability ever closer to infinite. It is a "guiding star" or "compass needle" to point in the right direction. One never actually gets there. But without trying in that direction, one goes in the opposite direction merely due to the inherent ease of entropy, losing all of the needs." [Humanarchy forum]

2.

Quote :

"In RM:AO, there is no actual negative. What is said to be negative, is merely less than the ambient, but definitely above zero. That is a concept that the entire world has struggled with literally since before the time of Ahdam. It is tempting to think in terms of opposites, positives and negatives because from any one subjective stand point, there really is a positive and negative. But ontologically, "out there" in reality, there is no such thing. There is merely more or less.

And the consequence of thinking in those subjective terms is conflict and misunderstandings. And that is why in the Bible story, it was warned to Ahdam and Eve to NOT "eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". Any hope of a Paradise is lost once people begin thinking in terms of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, White and Black, and so on.

During a time (like these) when changing is being promoted, anything that causes conflict is promoted because conflict inspires destruction which demands change. So for the last few centuries of "time to change the world" (aka "Secularism" and "New World Oder"), the thought of "all things having an opposite" has been promoted as people struggle to balance these opposites that never really existed. "There is no absolute, only relativity." is the cry. Thus "there is no Truth, only opinions".

Other than a very abstract morality, morals, goods and evils, must not be taken as anything but relative to the situation and orientation. They are subjective, not idols to be worshiped. The same is true of relativity and positives and negatives in Science.

In addition to not always being accurate, such polar opposite thinking leads to the incorrect notion that there is no absolute, that ALL things are relative (as has been recently promoted). And along with that thought is that there is no absolute truth and thus no "God". Having no certain Truth, leaves Man in quite a mess as each and every person begins to choose and try to dictate what is or isn't true, "independently choosing what direction is North". Confusion and chaos reign. Paradise is lost. And all because there is no standard, no absolute irrefutable.

For there to be the degree of harmony required by any form of a Paradise, there must be a standard for measures, for speech, for agreements. Something must be reliable and trustful, not merely relative to someone's desires or opinions at the moment, else "the world falls apart" as people compete for dominance "since there is no actual truth dominating anything".

The world begins to be as it reflects today, no one agreeing with anyone for long. And even worse, people are then taught that it must always be that way, because those above it all use such chaos and struggling in the masses to their own favor, their "good" against the "evil" of the masses, those "potential terrorists", "unrighteous", "wicked sinners"."

All sight is gained through contrasting form out of obscure noise via Definition and Bayesian Logic. One "sees" the wind, by seeing the leaves, clouds, snow, and dust. And one sees the Truth by declaring its construct.

There is a great deal of obfuscation in within the noise of Man's struggles. But no struggle proceeds without form. All that is ever gained always has form inspiring it. All of Science is merely identifying the forms by measuring the struggles. Thus when Man struggles in any way at all, there is form within it. When Man wars, there is form inspiring both sides.

Presumption is the seed of sin and the father of blindness. Accuracy is its adversary.

Learn to see the forms that inspire the wars of Man and you gain the Third Eye with which to see the Third Party. But there is not merely one Third Eye or Party. Contrast from the obfuscation, the forms and patterns of the many Third Parties, and the Fourth Eye awakens.

In the pyramid of intelligence, you have the obscure layers of
1) Confusion and noise (Chaos; Entropy and Blindness)
2) Understandings and misunderstandings (Order; Beliefs and Perceptions)
3) Maintenance of understandings and misunderstandings (Discipline and Ego; Kings and Priests)
4) Creators of understandings and misunderstandings (Creators of Orders and Discipline; "Lords")
5) Reality

..inverted.

Evolution had honed the process of life pretty exactly, so there isn't much to adjust beyond what is "natural". Man's eternal lustto make it all perfect is what has been preventing it from ever getting there. His fundamental aim, "Anentropy", hasn't really been wrong, especially that of Jesus and Mohammad, despite the horrendous confusions that arose.
But they always, always, seem to leave out a tiny detail. And that is all it takes. And that is why I focus on making certain that truly nothing is left out of the fundamental strategy and confusion is prevented. And that is the very soul of RM.
Every religion has been about the attempt to answer to that "left out" need, but every one has been a presumptuous lust to do so and thus not carefully ensured for the perfection being lusted for. And thus they fail, but not after making tremendous progress (and usually at horrendous expense).

Now my "theory" (always open to be verified) is that once you examine what nature had already instilled into what we call "Life", you will find that the essential conceptual components that make up the entire (100% complete) activity and need that was already 98% provided by nature, is simply stated as;
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"

That is what life DOES and what makes it what it is. That is the effort that has been crudely going on down on the genetic level of every living creature for a million years, merely crudely performed with limited resources.

Thus a "New Philosopher's Stone" can be realized so as to correct for the very long standing stumbling that Man has displayed simply by installing that understanding into what nature has already provided and was already doing to the degree possible, beginning with the conscious cognitive mind - the attempts to understand things (a part of what nature already provided). In other words, try to cognitively understand that Life really is nothing more than what that sentence says and the confusion that has been brought due to the crudeness with which it has been attempting it.

But the mind is not entirely cognitive and requires a "subconscious emotl understanding" that also does that same thing (the inner desires and urges). Then because they are both striving in the same direction, they unite into that famed "enlightened individual". But we can't stop there, because that still isn't enough.

What reality requires is complex and voluminous enough that an individual can't accomplish the exact proper anentropic dance. What is required is that TEAM, often called a "family". And that family must be structured only slightly different than nature was already doing such as to better harmonize with the dance that defines what life actually is;
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"

And all that is required to cause the "family unit", aka "The TEAM", to adjust into being that slightly improved version is theconscious effort to do that very same thing;
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"

Much like the original self-replicating cell, it only takes ONE. After a single "proper anentropic family unit" is formed, nature takes over and does the rest. No one needs to try to force the entire world into some scheme. As one scripture put it, "Just live right and let God/Reality handle the rest", let nature do what it does.

Joy is the inner perception of progress. And certainty adds to that perception. You don't go out and celebrate because you got a 2% chance of doubling your salary. You wait until you see the check. And thus it is the certainty of being able to get what one wants that registers, and that means the power to ensure that he gets it. And that mean, in most minds, the certainty of control beyond any real or imagined adversary. It is the removal of doubt, which was just becoming a relevant part of another thread.

It is the certainty of cooperation that is sought. Unfortunately to most people, when they say "now we have the power to...", they misconstrue that "we" to include them.... haha... jokes on them. The "progress" of one, generally means the decline of another.

The intent of the Biblical God in Genesis was altruism (which is why Jesus stated that he (in spirit) was "in the beginning"). Evil is about control through killing the adversary."[ib.]

3.

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

ILP: it's like taking the two worst parts of facebook, namely, the socializing and pretense part, and the part where people who can't think try to think, and then making a forum out of it.

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




I guess objectivity means keeping in mind the standards and perspectives of apes and baboons now. And robots and dead zombies in the future and how beauty appears even to the dead.

Nec-romancy is what we need. Lets consult the dead too and take their perspective.

Proof of more all-levelling relativism...

Lyssa wrote:

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




I guess objectivity means keeping in mind the standards and perspectives of apes and baboons now. And robots and dead zombies in the future and how beauty appears even to the dead.

Nec-romancy is what we need. Lets consult the dead too and take their perspective.

Proof of more all-levelling relativism...

Turds miss the reproductive component when it suits them.
Bunch of apes.

Beauty is the perception of symmetry, and probability.
The sexual attraction to genetic markers is about probability...potential.
prompting Schopenhauer to write this...

Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote:

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex … More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling of receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please.

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

Retard wrote:

I'm a man.. a man with a beard, just not a dog. There's a difference between a dog and a man.

The reason she's a super model is because she wanted to be a super model of which she has traits determined by the majority to make her eye candy. I wonder why honey boo boo is a show.

I'm a god myself, every human being is a god or goddess. Get with the program, it isn't based solely of physical traits/attraction. Anyone with a half working mind can realize what they are.

See?
The beautiful was democratically decided.
In the underlined you see uniformity, equality, all-inclusion, the feel-good delusions of a weak mind.

I am not making this shit up.
I couldn't make this shit up.
This is so absurd, so stupid, so needy, so delusional, my imagination would not have managed to conceptualize it, if my mind didn't witness it.

Do you see nihilism and how it affects the brain?
Do you see why it is so seductive, and it becomes viral?

And this is only the most absurd manifestation of this memetic virus which, like all viruses, intrudes through the weakest points.
Imagine, if you can, the more complex manifestation of the same delusion; one where math becomes a fabric of reality rather than a symbolic representation of it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The degenerate stalker and obsessive narcissist who spent months threatening me and some poor girl from Toronto, is now my representative on ILP.
Ha!!!

Yeah, this world is fucked-up.
Because it is populated by fucked-up spirits, desperately wanting to not be s fucked-up.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]what a dumb cow this Maj is....this almost MENSA female is using the "there are exceptions to the rule" to now avoid what she cannot explain away about beauty and women.
She spends days denying it, and then tries to distance herself from what she was too obtuse to accept as fact.
I think she should stick to wearing high-heels and going out clubbing, hoping some blind idiot will fall for her "intellectual" gifts.

In-fuckin-credible!

In the "beauty is subjective" thread the imbeciles are now admitting symmetry is objective but what kind of symmetry is still subjective....
What?
A defensive retreat...
If i were allowed in there I would be having a field day with this stupidity.  

Then, sensing defeat, they begin to question why the subject is relevant at all...in a philosophy forum!!!!
Can you believe this shit is real?

Yes...no matter how pessimistic my descriptions might sound, how vulgar my style is, nothing can match the real thing.

On ILP [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are now curing cancer...with numbers...but KT is the sick, cult, and they are the healthy ones.
They also detached value from anything real, by tuning it into a formula anyone can apply.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] at this imbecile trying to make sense of his stupidity...his socially engineering bullshit.

ILP Retard wrote:

Proof of that is how in the 50's women with meat on their bones were sexy, now anorexia is. It's all that stupid following bs, not anyones own educated opinion. "Oh I like this because it's what the majority like, and I want to be normal." It's social engineering by and in society starting at a young age.

A bit of meat on the bone meant affluence...now being athletic means the same thing.
In both cases symmetry was present.

Nobody considers an obese woman, or man, beautiful...no matter how much brainwashing imbeciles like him try to impose upon the young.  
Nobody considers a stick-figure, shapeless female, attractive.

Beauty is about increased probabilities (order), in a world of increasing uniform possibilities (chaos).

From our appreciation of  woman, or a dog, or a mountainside, it is the symmetry, the harmony of colors and shapes, and sounds, that attract us as probability, order, symmetry.
Symmetry is not created by the human mind...the human brain evolves, being the product of order itself, to perceive it, to discover it.

Fuckin' degenerate retards.

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

Hawkes wrote:

"The objectification of the subject (carnality) and the subjectification of the object (idolatry) are different aspects of one process which Milton, like later philosophers, calls “alienation.” Satan is described as “Alien from Heav’n” (4.571) and “alienate from God” (5.877). The effect of the Fall is to reduce the world to the same “alienated” (9.9) condition, and Satan considers God “alienated” (10.378) from creation, thus leaving it prey to “the dark Idolatries / Of alienated Judah” (1.456–457)." [The Faust Myth]

Stuck in the same paradigm... as those other ignoramuses with inverted crosses and speaking of being anti-Xt... comical...

Nihilism covers both sides of the dualistic poles.

God<>Satan

Within their spiritual paradigm both are spirits of negation.

The Nihilists on ILP will have us believe that this...


...can be considered beautiful in some imaginary culture, if you train (social eugenics) children to think that it is - brainwashing which can only lead to pretenses and lies.
They are insinuating eugenics and social engineering, while at the same time claiming to be against them....because they are only against certain kinds of social engineering, education, eugenics, and are always for the kinds that make appearances insignificant, train children to not trust their own senses and judgments, and where all are born with equal potentials, even if this contradicts evolution theory and man's experience with the world.
In this case, the "equal potential" for an obese woman to believe that she too is beautiful, to someone, in some fantasy culture, is part of the social engineering, or nihilistic modern edumucation.
Teach a child to be brain-dead, to disregard his senses, to not trust his judgments, and you can train a Zombie to feeds, and stuble across existence guided only by appetites he can never control because he does not honestly analyze them.  

To achieve this inversion of reality, they jump from physical symmetry (beauty) to a presumed mental symmetry (intelligence), and from to a sexual appeal to genes, to an emotional appeal based on memes and on human frailties.
They confuse being positively inclined towards someone, because they offer something to you, or because they feed a need, or because having no other options you find gratification there, with objective beauty.  
Liberal social engineering in all its glory.
Watch them shifting nervously...one moment the ass-cheek is on the physical chair, the other ass-cheek hovering above it...then both settle and rise and heave, trying to escape standing up!
They are so afraid of the world that they will go to any length to preserve the delusion that man decides what is beautiful and what is superior and what is valuable, confusing artificial, simulation, for reality itself, and noumena for phenomena.

In all cultures the basic elements of genetic health and reproductive possibility, remain common, no matter what variant they take.
With order in a chaotic world, the rarity of it determines its value and how a conscious mind is attracted to it.

And what is order?
Probability, pattern, symmetry.  

And what is probability?
A reduction of possibility.
Knowledge is the accumulation of probabilities, stored in code (genes, and then human codes words, numbers).
A code is an abstraction - the simplification/generalization of the phenomenon, tuning it into a noetic tool, a mental model, then symbolized by the word/number, or by art.  

And what is possibility?
Space/time...pushed to its extreme it is the towards infinite possibility (space-time) where no probability is present, maknig all possibilities equally possible = randomness, chaos.

Order is not created by man, man evolves to discover it, because it benefits man, as man, life, is an ordering and so finds order/symmetry useful, attractive, tasty, seductive etc.

The subjective mind must adapt to the ever-changing, dynamic, objective world, which is tending towards increasing chaos; it forages for order so as to maintain itself within this chaos, and it strives to increase order, first in himself and then by constructing ideals that can be shared by others.

The nihilist whylifeispointless sets up a decent scenario to get to the bottom of the question of self:

whylifeispointless wrote:

If I were to split my brain in half and have them implanted in two separate clones of me, which body would I exist in?
....
The physicalism model would say that half of me would be in both bodies, but my gut tells me that my self would either exist in one body or not exist at all. My self isn't capable of having a point of view from two bodies not physically sharing information with one another.

My initial response:

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

Later the slightly less nihilistic noAxioms declares defeat:

noAxioms wrote:

These are the games that demonstrate that there is probably no such thing as a self, that is, any kind of unique persistent identity of a being.

Stuart wrote:

Why let these scenarios make you throw your hands in the air and give up? You seem to imply that since there obviously wouldn't be a way to distinguish symmetrical clones from each other that one just as well may identify with someone completely different than such a clone. One is generally more like family, than one is like others, if one had such a type of clone you speak of, who actually shared the same phenotype (memories, etc.) up until the cloning, then that person would be closer to you than family.

Distinguishing factors among individuals, families and other groupings of people of course changes, but that doesn't mean it's nothing. All of reality is constantly changing, one may only try to distinguish oneself and those like him for as long as possible.

Further on, whylifeispointless begins to negate his own scenario for fear it might make him reevaluate either his nihilism, or more likely, his cowardly dishonest approach to it:

whymylifeisshitless wrote:

I would say that you could still determine that my body is different from a clone because the laws of physics require that my body must be different than my clone. So while the clone's subjective experience will be extremely similar to mine, it will never equal mine. So the subjective experience of being whylifeispointless  can't happen because it's impossible, it can only be extremely similar.

It's a mistake to say that two objects equal each other in the reality we're in because it's physically impossible to happen. To say that my clone has the first person subjective experience of being whylifeispointless is based on your subjectivity and not objectivity.

Stuart wrote:

You have what I guess many would call, a Platonic view of yourself and reality. You're not a static being, you have no essence but that which you create. All things are in constant motion, including particles, and there is no smallest particle that one could claim is absolutely indivisible- that's a myth that only the more stupid of modern physicists believe in.

If I was missing an arm, maybe even a toe, and actually believed in this hypothetical cloning technology were speaking of, I would actually volunteer to be replaced by a more healthy clone.

whymylifeisblaimless wrote:

Your healthy clone will be different than what you were physically and if you die, reality will stop existing for you. You won't be in the clone.

His scenario is of course just an analogy for how one should respond to those most like him - family, people he would deny, just as he sets up unobtainable standards of what is self, so as to deny that as well.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] this, retard, rehash the old "if a tree falls in the forest" philosophical candy-cane, for the children, topic...

ILP Retard wrote:

But Artimas, I think that you are taking the experience from your memory and it's an assumption that because we humans were around to hear the sounds, they can still be heard when we're gone. Where is the human brain to hear these sounds? I think that it's an illusion to feel this way. Not saying that you're delusional here.

If there is absolutely nothing around to hear that sound, how is it made?

From one retard to the other....the energy released from a tree falling, or anything happening, cannot be real, unless there is a subjective mind there to make it real by interpreting it into what we call sound.
It's baffling to these retards how something can be real without them and their subjectivity, lending it  credence by acknowledging it.

Nothing happened in the universe until man and life, emerged to verify that something was happening.

And from this them denying reality makes 'it go away'...and if they democratically agree to it, then 'it going away' is made fact.

Ergo...beauty is "in the eye of the beholder", and beholding is essential for the order/symmetry beauty refers to be real, objectively so.
If nobody sees symmetry then it isn't there.
Man must make it be there by acknowledging it.

It's not that life emerged as ordering and perceives ordering as already present, interpreting it as beauty, or harmony, or using whatever word you wish to use to refer to the many sensual perceptions a life-form has to engage reality, but by perceiving man invents reality.
And because morons are protected, this subjectivity need not face a quick and certain end, which we call natural selection.
It can high-five the other retards and live in the subjectivity of their choosing, knowing that no objective world will ever trouble them.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what dumbing-down, and cowardice, and stupidity looks like.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] this, retard, rehash the old "if a tree falls in the forest" philosophical candy-cane, for the children, topic...

ILP Retard wrote:

But Artimas, I think that you are taking the experience from your memory and it's an assumption that because we humans were around to hear the sounds, they can still be heard when we're gone. Where is the human brain to hear these sounds? I think that it's an illusion to feel this way. Not saying that you're delusional here.

If there is absolutely nothing around to hear that sound, how is it made?

From one retard to the other....the energy released from a tree falling, or anything happening, cannot be real, unless there is a subjective mind there to make it real by interpreting it into what we call sound.
It's baffling to these retards how something can be real without them and their subjectivity, lending it  credence by acknowledging it.

Nothing happened in the universe until man and life, emerged to verify that something was happening.

And from this them denying reality makes 'it go away'...and if they democratically agree to it, then 'it going away' is made fact.

Ergo...beauty is "in the eye of the beholder", and beholding is essential for the order/symmetry beauty refers to be real, objectively so.
If nobody sees symmetry then it isn't there.
Man must make it be there by acknowledging it.

It's not that life emerged as ordering and perceives ordering as already present, interpreting it as beauty, or harmony, or using whatever word you wish to use to refer to the many sensual perceptions a life-form has to engage reality, but by perceiving man invents reality.
And because morons are protected, this subjectivity need not face a quick and certain end, which we call natural selection.
It can high-five the other retards and live in the subjectivity of their choosing, knowing that no objective world will ever trouble them.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what dumbing-down, and cowardice, and stupidity looks like.

Yes, stand underneath a tree as it falls while plugging your ears and closing your eyes: it won't crush you, because since you can no longer perceive it, it no longer exists.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the retard trying to think.

ILP head Retard wrote:

Conversely, objectivity is an attitude adopted only by people who can't shoulder the responsibility of their personal tastes and have to foist it onto the external world to bear. That's not an argument, that's a dismissal of any counterargument, which is effectively a resignation from the onerous burden of having to defend and justify your views.

Anyone can have an opinion and claim it's correct. Philosophy is doing the groundwork to prove one's view is correct, to justify it to the satisfaction of other intelligent, critical minds. If you can't be bothered with that, that's fine; you have every right to proclaim The Truth As You See It. You just can't call what you're doing philosophy.

According to this crap, saying there is an objective world which the subjective mind must interpret and adapt to or perish is not taking responsibility...but deluding yourself that whatever you think is true is actually true is not evading culpability.

When retards are placed in position of authority do you expect much more from what they lord over?

How long before he finds an excuse to lock those threads?