Open Challenge

I start this thread so as to offer a place for anyone, from anywhere, using any moniker, to challenge my views on any subject.
(Yes, I am a bit bored)


If I am some deranged sociopath or some "loser" building sandcastles to deal with his own issues, then this would be the perfect place to expose me.

Satyr wrote:

If I am some deranged sociopath or some "loser" building sandcastles to deal with his own issues, then this would be the perfect place to expose me.

I certainly don't think that at all, but Debating against you could prove most entertaining and enlightening. I must admit, that I'm stuck for a subject, however. How about you list five possible subjects, I'll narrow it down to two, and then you pick one.

EDIT: Regardless of whether or not a winner or loser is to be declared, if this is to be a Formal Debate, then we will require a limit as to how many posts we may each make. I don't care what that limit is.

I'll be your huckleberry.

I believe in evolution, however, I question the mechanism, I'm not sure random mutations could produce something as complex and intricate as a cell, let alone a human being, and even if it could, thousands or perhaps millions of individuals within a species would likely perish before random, genetic mutations would produce a single individual capable of sustaining itself in a hostile environment, and thus, it would have nothing to procreate with. In other words, it is far more likely that a species would fall apart, before it mutated into a new, well functioning, adept species.

If I put a copy of Homer's Iliad out in the rain, I would not expect the radiation, wind and rain to turn it into Homer's Odyssey, or Hesiod's Theogony. Similarly I would not expect radiation, bumps and grinds, wear and tear and farts to turn a neanderthals genetic code into a sapiens genetic code, and even if it could, it is a millions of times more likely radiation, wind and the rain, wear and tear would turn it into mush or if you prefer the monkeys typing on a type writer analogy, gibberish, and thus, mathematically speaking, millions of sentences in Homer's Iliad would have to be ruined before one good sentence was rewritten, or millions of retarded nonsense books would have to be written in order to produce one work of art, and so there would be little or nothing to procreate with, the species would die of incest.

Even if the process happens slowly, one sentence rewritten by retarded monkeys a year, you're still not going to get a mathematically significant difference, the math is the same, whether it is happening slowly, or not, a thousand or a million times more gibberish than coherence.

The fact of the matter is, it is always far, far more difficult to produce order from chaos than chaos from chaos, naturally.
This is a problem for Darwinists.

It is my theory that evolution, in most cases probably, works differently. Only order can produce order at a reliable, consistent rate, therefore the mechanism that gives rise to new species must be an orderly one. However, there is no need to postulate a God or a conscious mechanism.. here's an analogy. How does a muscle grow? The answer, certain and specific stresses in the environment trigger a mechanism that causes a muscle to grow. I think evolution works similarly. How does a zygote evolve into a fetus and a fetus into a baby? This, I believe, is how one species evolves into another, stresses in the environment cause certain and specific changes in genetic sequences. This is not a new idea, it has been around for centuries, it is how most people who don't know a thing about science assume evolution works. I cannot empirically prove it, but nor can the Darwinists prove there's, but mine is more plausible.

We all share essentially the same DNA, from worms to man, it is the sequences that are turned on and off that account for the differences in our organic composition. For example, scientists, through genetic tampering, were able to get non flowering plants to produce flowers, and these are plants that have never before in their history produced a single flower, simply by different genes being turned on and off than normal, not having to add or subtract a single strand of DNA.


If chaos, random genetic mutations could produce such amazing order and fantastic regularity, than why do our bodies resist change, if random genetic mutations could produce the grandeur and the beauty we witness all around us? Why are there microscopic organisms within our DNA that are designed to conservatively preserve our DNA as it is, if random genetic mutations are a force for growth, life and evolution, and not cancer and decay? That's right, in the vast majority of cases, random genetic mutations produce cancers, lesions and deformities, I don't think there's been recorded case where they have produced something of value (in the objective sense), something conducive to the survival of the organism. The idea that chaos, change and chance can, or are even remotely likely to produce the abundance of life that surrounds us, is in fact, a liberal idea, not all that different than the Idea that life came from nothing, or from one of God's farts. Liberal chaos cannot produce such sophistication. We, being order personified, are descended from order, not chaos, mechanisms that are designed to turn certain, specific genes on and off, depending on the environment impetus, stimulus, to produce a creature appropriate for it's environment. Random mutations in genetic codes may play a role, but at best, it is a secondary one. These mechanisms are automatically triggered by the environment, unconsciously, physically, but they are orderly, predictable, no need to introduce a God or miracles to account for them. All of us, from worms to human beings, essentially possess the same DNA, it is the turning on and off of genes that makes a chimp and chimp and a giraffe a giraffe, more/less.

Also, life on planet earth didn't come from a primordial soup, it journeyed here from other planets, a far, far more likely scenario. It traveled here on asteroids from one planet to another in the form of certain kinds of bacteria, which can endure far more than multicellular life can, or perhaps aliens terraformed our planet (more unlikely), or a combination of the two. This is a far, far more likely scenario than the myth of primordial soup, that something could come from nothing or order could come from chaos. There are no absolute or true beginnings and ends, in this Satyr preserves the Judeochristian worldview in another form (exnihilo, exkao). Every beginning is an end and every end a beginning. Everything has a history, a precedent, for there is nothing new under or over the sun.

If life came here from other planets, where did that come from, you may ask. The answer, from other planets. Is that so absurd to believe? Where did stars come from, if not from other stars, which came from other stars.

The universe is probably more/less uniform, infinite, predictable, repetitious, and utterly devoid of inherent meaning, yet in many ways, it is a work of art. Activity.. that it is.. but more, it is cyclical activity, temporally and spatially cyclical.


In Satyr's worldview, there may have been or probably was a time when stars were not, when the universe looked markedly different than it does at present, but I think not, though nothing is certain for we are finite beings. The universe suggests that it is quite a dull place, things tend to repeat themselves, we, though we like to imagine that due to our intellect, we can somehow escape it, we are just as much a a part of it as the seasons.

The human race will come to an end one day, just as all individuals and species do, but a new species will arise from our ashes, and we will, in a sense, live on through them, whether they are our offspring or not. Everything from stars to atoms, man and mankind lives, dies, and lives again.

Another law- the universe isn't increasing in joy, life and pleasure, or any subjective or objective quality, nor is it decreasing. In this apparent dissonance, there is a harmony. Just as the hills and valleys of our planet average out to curved flatness, so too do all peaks and valleys, like life and death, so there is this cosmic greyness or mean, a harmonizing of opposites, and this is another principle where I part from Satyr, for when you boil him down, his thought is more representative of the atomist school, or perhaps he doesn't believe in the solidity of anything (what is metaphysics but the quest for solidity?), he believes in purely chaostic change occasionally giving rise to order, this is the only metaphysical law he and his kind acknowledge.

He does not believe in a higher law, such as my harmony of dissonance/opposites and cyclical change, for he believes things are merely changing, and the universe in time, may turn into something completely different than it currently is. Although he may be right, there is just too much order here for me to ignore, but it is not a judeochristian hindubuddhist order, it is an indifferent order, a cold, hard, meaningless order, a mathematical one, caring not for the affairs of life on earth or anywhere else. At least a partial synthesis of all possibilities, hard and soft, curved and straight, life and death.

Essentially, to reiterate, I am more of the Heraclitean school, or of the Daoist school, to sum up my positions contra Satyr's, I am more/less a dialectical monist. He is not an atomist, I don't think, he is a believer in chaos.


Well, feel free to respond to anything you'd like, you may counter all of my said positions, or a few, or one.


Edit- Right, not merely activity, Satyr, your position is chaotic activity that, according to the laws of chance, occasionally but not inevitably, gives rise to order. Yours is the bleakest and blackest of views (save Gorgias), for even the atomists believe there is a solidity, a stability to the universe, in the form of irreducibles, and the Platonists (going in the opposite direction), the forms, or universals. Me, I do not believe anything is solid, everything is subject to change, from atoms to stars, and things even bigger and smaller than they, but I believe solid laws that govern change (or perhaps they are cyclical too? ?), and the highest two laws are- cyclical temporal and spatial change, and harmony of dissonance. The higher laws are made up of the lower laws we're familiar with and conversely the lower laws are made out of the higher laws.

*I should add that I don't fully believe in most of the things I've said, I'm just using them to challenge you, as much as that is possible.

*A strange universe we inhabit, how these two metaphysical forces, order building things up into galaxies, stars, planets, moons and atoms, animals and plants (the same subjects and objects every time), only to have chaos tear them apart, again and again for all eternity, neither force gaining a foothold for very long, like a half realized, unfinished work. What a tragic comedy. Curious, are the metaphysical laws and objects just as real as or more than the physical ones, or are the physical ones an illusion, as the atomist school teaches?

Right...the old complexity argument.

Much to cover but let us remain on a few points.
Perhaps this can splinter off into a thread of its own.

The idea of complexity, you might agree, is relative to the mind that perceives it. To a human mind, an average one, perhaps life is far too complex for it to fully comprehend...and what is comprehension?
Finding patterns and so reasons for causation in perceived phenomena which can then be used to extrapolate general rules to be used to predict other phenomena..

eyesinthedark wrote:

I believe in evolution, however, I question the mechanism, I'm not sure random mutations could produce something as complex and intricate as a cell, let alone a human being, and even if it could, thousands or perhaps millions of individuals within a species would likely perish before random, genetic mutations would produce a single individual capable of sustaining itself in a hostile environment, and thus, it would have nothing to procreate with. In other words, it is far more likely that a species would fall apart, before it mutated into a new, well functioning, adept species.

Skepticism is a healthy attitude, just as long as it does not become an end in itself....like with some.
Forget about a human being, for this is the later product of that first life form.
A cell.
As with the eye the final concept which can be called a seeing eye is preceded by multiple forms which cannot be called an eye: like a photosensitive cell.
I would say a cell is also a case of a final product of human understanding which has been proceeded by multiple other, failed, forms of order which cannot be called a cell but which represent intermediary stages leading up to it.
If you are asking me to tell you about these intermediate stages then I cannot.
I can only offer a thesis based on a perceptible world; one I use to extrapolate, deduce, the parts I have no knowledge of.
An absence of knowledge does not make every hypothesis equally plausible, more so it makes the ones claiming certainty all the more needy and weak.

If you are asking me to project myself in some "outside" realm and then make pronouncements upon a "whole" universe, then, again, i cannot, as I do not believe in an 'outside" existence for this would mean a non-existence.
I can only use the immediately accessible and available o me to deduce and induce hypothetical solutinos to a problem of ignorance, or to construct mental models which are more complex and detailed in relation to others.

eyesinthedark wrote:

If I put a copy of Homer's Iliad out in the rain, I would not expect the radiation, wind and rain to turn it into Homer's Odyssey, or Hesiod's Theogony. Similarly I would not expect radiation, bumps and grinds, wear and tear and farts to turn a neanderthals genetic code into a sapiens genetic code, and even if it could, it is a millions of times more likely radiation, wind and the rain, wear and tear would turn it into mush or if you prefer the monkeys typing on a type writer analogy, gibberish, and thus, mathematically speaking, millions of sentences in Homer's Iliad would have to be ruined before one good sentence was rewritten, or millions of retarded nonsense books would have to be written in order to produce one work of art, and so there would be little or nothing to procreate with, the species would die of incest.

In whatever way this proto-lifeform came about one thing is for sure - or more probable - it did not sexually reproduce.
It, most likely, divided, making itself, making your "incest" scenario unnecessary.
But with every division (inter)activity did not cease to affect the organism or this animated type of matter. Every time it divided the environment changed it ever so slightly (mutation).

When it comes to the concept of "life" what we are dealing with - and this goes back to the previous point - is an alteration in (inter)activity. What I mean to say is that when it comes to inanimate matter we can say that it is random activity which comes about by activity itself - pure causality - but when it comes to "life" we are adding the element of will. This is where I disagree with Schopenhauer and as a consequence with Nietzsche.
To say that existence has a Will, or can be reduced to Will, is to imply a consciousness.
For me "Will" is the great mystery, for it describes a kind of (inter)activity which is not random but is determined by a judgment.

This Will as animating force is the easiest scenario as it does away with the problem of how and why life came about or, as you put it, how order is produced in a chaotic world.
I do not ascribe to this because I do not have to. I do not have to because my motive is not to appear or to claim to be omnipotent or someone who knows it all, but only one who can offer the most plausible explanation for a shared experience.
I also do not ascribe to it because it stinks of religion....it is but a different way of saying the same monistic bullshit every other religion says, but only in a more sophisticated and mystical way.

In other words, because I deny the absolute I cannot claim it for myself, as omnipotence. I only claim a superior standpoint.
I do not claim to understand all; I claim to understand more than the average or more than the one who is challenging me.
This distinction is important.
Of course the retards I deal with cannot but fall into the trap of thinking in absolute terms, because they cannot think outside of them. Therefore when I claim to have a superior position they take this to mean that I claim a position of infallibility or omniscience...but I do not as this would contradict the first and primary principle in my philosophy which is the absence of all absolutes.
When I resit or contradict their simplistic counter-points they take this as arrogance or that I am pretending to be all-knowing. For them an unwillingness to offer the benefit of the doubt to whatever stupidity they use to defend themselves against my positions means that I am closed to any challenging position.
The ideal for them would be a mind who only half-heartily believes in the things he does, and quickly buckles or shows cracks in his armor with the slightest challenge.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The fact of the matter is, it is always far, far more difficult to produce order from chaos than chaos from chaos, naturally.
This is a problem for Darwinists.

I don't know about "Darwinists" because they come in many forms, but this is not an issue for me.

It is not one because "order" is not something which exists outside the human mind, if it is taken in the absolute.
Let me explain...the term order/disorder are words. They are terms used by human minds to orient themselves and to achieve some understanding.
There is no absolute order or disorder...and so these are simply ideals projected as antipodes so as to construct, in their midst or in the interplay between them a worldview.
They are tools for understanding.

So, when we say "order" we always mean a state in relation to the one observing, just as when we say beautiful we mean the same, or when we say tall or strong of long-lived or large we mean the same.
Something is considered ordered when it, in relation to the mind observing, exhibits a consistent predictability which can be used to predict and successfully guide the organism on whose behalf this mind is working.
When we say chaos we mean the opposite. We mean that the phenomena are becoming far too complex for the mind observing to find predictable repetitive structures so as to use to predict...the mind interpret the extreme of this as darkness, or black: void.
This does not mean that the mind is entirely off base, as the mind is a product of the universe and so its interpretations must have something to do with the phenomena it is observing. It means that what is occurring, in relation to the mind observing,is incomprehensible and that it is happening at a rate where the mind cannot keep up, using evolution.
Technology can be the mind compensating with innovation to deal with this failure. It is a speeding up of adaptation.

In short, order/disorder are not things, absolutes, which exist out there and the mind becomes aware of them.
Order/Disorder, like evil/good, like black/white, like up/down, are mental construct meant to facilitate the organism's Becoming or ongoing (inter)activity in its attempt to sustain itself against constant change or constant activity.
Think of it as a level of order which in relation to the average is trying to freeze itself (eternal), make of itself an absolute in a reality which lacks it. Of course this happens on a visceral level and only in relation to a mind which can think in terms of order/disorder. Life, in its simplest form is simply self-replicating ordering in (re)action to increasing disordering.

So, out of constant (inter)action a unity emerges exhibiting a tendency towards a static state, which eventually develops into what we call life.

Now, if we take the Big Bang as a seminal point, a metaphor, then it represents the point where (inter)activity reaches the closest point to the absolute or to absolute inertia, inactivity: pure Being...and what the Buddhists call emptiness. It is obvious that this hypothetical, theoretical, metaphorical, point, whether it is a real event or not, would be considered by the living organism, which is an ordering in the disordering, a very seductive one...a point of paradise, Godliness reached but not attained.

But let us take disordering (increasing entropy) and ordering (which can be projected as anything from God to thingness or an ideology)...what does it mean?
It means that in relation to the observer - in this case man is made into a focal point, a pivot, a nexus - existence exhibits certain tendencies or trends, towards which life and consciousness stands in subjective relation to.
So, in relation to life the world can only be increasing in entropy as only towards this tendency can consciousness or the level of ordering which we call life can come about.
We can speculate about increasing ordering or of an absolute state of inertia but all of that is nonsensical in that it can never be sensed or validated and must always remain speculative.
So much so that entire world-views and religions can be built on a premise which is totally antithetical to the experienced. These I call nihilistic, as they nullify the experience of living, constitute it irrelevant, a joke, a hoax, a grand game played upon us by some imagines, unsubstantiated Being.

eyesinthedark wrote:

It is my theory that evolution, in most cases probably, works differently. Only order can produce order at a reliable, consistent rate, therefore the mechanism that gives rise to new species must be an orderly one. However, there is no need to postulate a God or a conscious mechanism.. here's an analogy. How does a muscle grow? The answer, certain and specific stresses in the environment trigger a mechanism that causes a muscle to grow. I think evolution works similarly. How does a zygote evolve into a fetus and a fetus into a baby? This, I believe, is how one species evolves into another, stresses in the environment cause certain and specific changes in genetic sequences. This is not a new idea, it has been around for centuries, it is how most people who don't know a thing about science assume evolution works. I cannot empirically prove it, but nor can the Darwinists prove there's, but mine is more plausible.

The question can be summed up as such: How does anything live within so much lifelessness or within so much reality which is threatening to life?
This is what make life all the more precious.

This so called "fine balance" is for me nonsense. It comes after the fact to pronounce the conditions which make it possible as "perfectly balanced",a s if by design. It assumes that nothing else comparable is possible if these balances were not just so. It also assumes that these perfect, to this form of ordering we call life is absolute and not some temporary condition brought about by the constant flow of reality...this "balance" will soon cease to be so in perfect balance, making this type of life obsolete.

For me it comes down to a basic principle: All actions create an equal and opposite reaction. Let us let the "equal" slide, for it does not accurately represent what is occurring with life...otherwise life would be immortal.
This (re)action to increasing entropy, whether or not there are flows towards increasing order or not, is what makes life possible. Life is the resistance to entropy; it is an antithesis to it; it is a level of ordering maintaining itself in a consistent flow towards fragmentation.
In any other possible scenario such as towards decreasing entropy, life would be irrelevant.

Take what life evolves into: the storage and passing on of information. What is information? Simplified and codified experiences.
In fact life is the past imposing itself upon a forever coming future. This is why the debate between "progressives" and "conservatives" is mostly ludicrous and the reverse of what is really occurring.
I would say, for instance, that conservatives are the real "rebels" as it is they who propose a form of order, authoritarian or not in a world of disorder.They are a masculine force.
I would say "progressives" or liberals are the real conservatives, as it is they who wish to renounce all attempts at ordering (see denial of types, stereotypes, categories all forms of discrimination, anything founded no a past which is immutable and inescapable etc.), so as to let go to the natural flow towards entropy, fragmentation (see what feminism, or the destruction of racial criteria and family, truly is). What progressives propose is a letting go to entropy, in other words to what is occurring with or without human intervention: the status quo.
In the liberal mindset the ultimate goal is a reunification with the absolute. You see, underlying this psychological tendency is a desire to annul self and to "return" (rebirth, recurred, resurrection) to that missing, but desired, "absolute". It represents, for them, an end to suffering (existing and the awareness of it) but not an end to consciousness (conveniently), as the absolute, in their minds, must entail an absolute consciousness.
In my worldview consciousness is a tool for self-sustenance. It has no meaning outside existence or in any imagined absolute form because it lacks necessity and object/objective.
Consciousness evolves for a reason.
How and why it turns self-destructive is another topic in itself.
To deal with this problem the nihilists, progressives included, try to make life a big experiment; a cosmic joke and a ruse - an illusion; a game played by a bored omniscience...the latter contradicting the very conception of an absolute.
The moment you say that something is "bored" you are accusing it of a failing - a weakness, a lack.

Other ways of apologizing for this paradox is the infamous debate over the goodness of God which allows evil to exist.
Another way is to call the past God...in the form I think Spinoza gave it as an immanence. The past is always static as it is unchangeable...and so it is always immanent to the future, but this is only a clever ploy to deify something and make it seem as if it were inevitable...ergo ordered.
I can find no other definition for "immanence", unless I go into the Bible and come up with god's omnipresence...which claims to say something without saying anything at all.

I asked the bitch Sauwelios for a definition of the term but she ran off when I asked her.

eyesinthedark wrote:

If chaos, random genetic mutations could produce such amazing order and fantastic regularity, than why do our bodies resist change, if random genetic mutations could produce the grandeur and the beauty we witness all around us?

The emotional characterizations of "grandeur", "fantastic" or whatever, are examples of a life form expressing exhilaration at its own perceptions of itself, or wonderment and appreciation towards a state it lacks in itself.
The terms "beauty", "magnificence", "grandeur" have no meaning outside the human mind. There is nothing beautiful about the world, but it is only the perception of it, by a mind which finds wonderment in the conditions that make it possible, which makes this word meaningful.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The universe is probably more/less uniform, infinite, predictable, repetitious, and utterly devoid of inherent meaning, yet in many ways, it is a work of art. Activity.. that it is.. but more, it is cyclical activity, temporally and spatially cyclical.

No, art is a product of a human mind which wishes to express its feelings and fears and emotions, in general, in regards to an existence it cannot fully fathom.
Language is an art-form. Math is art.

eyesinthedark wrote:

In Satyr's worldview, there may have been or probably was a time when stars were not, when the universe looked markedly different than it does at present, but I think not, though nothing is certain for we are finite beings. The universe suggests that it is quite a dull place, things tend to repeat themselves, we, though we like to imagine that due to our intellect, we can somehow escape it, we are just as much a a part of it as the seasons.

No, in Satyr's worldview there was a time when all was bright and full of light and that slowly this began to fragment and become increasingly complex to the point where darkness came because man's senses and man's mind could not make sense of the activities and (inter)actions occurring, interpreting it as "dark" and that in relation to life, as we know it, this increasing fragmentation is an increase in the improbability of life coming to be or of maintaining itself, unless man comes up with some innovation which will slightly prolong his lifespan or will manage to reverse the trend and manage to create ordering in the disordering.

For me what we call the "past" is a reference to what was more ordered, in relation to us. The Big Bang is the near absolute order....the almost singular point of Being.
This makes "progressive" psychology all the more nihilistic. For them the projection of an equal near absolute nothing, is a desirable state. A state where no distinction, no activity, occurs and so no suffering is ever experienced.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The human race will come to an end one day, just as all individuals and species do, but a new species will arise from our ashes, and we will, in a sense, live on through them, whether they are our offspring or not. Everything from stars to atoms, man and mankind lives, dies, and lives again.

Most probably.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Another law- the universe isn't increasing in joy, life and pleasure, or any subjective or objective quality, nor is it decreasing. In this apparent dissonance, there is a harmony. Just as the hills and valleys of our planet average out to curved flatness, so too do all peaks and valleys, like life and death, so there is this cosmic greyness or mean, a harmonizing of opposites, and this is another principle where I part from Satyr, for when you boil him down, his thought is more representative of the atomist school, or perhaps he doesn't believe in the solidity of anything (what is metaphysics but the quest for solidity?), he believes in purely chaostic change occasionally giving rise to order, this is the only metaphysical law he and his kind acknowledge.

Yes, "joy" is but an emotional (re)action to phenomena, and has little to do with the phenomenon itself. What you think of or how you feel about death or a lion or a rock is irrelevant to them. It is only relevant to you in relation to them.
Yes...the quest is towards "solidity"...the inert....the projected absent absolute.
Will towards Power.....Will toward Life...it is always described as a movement towards it or somehow hovering above it or beyond it.

I would say that "solidity" no matter what "positive" qualities you can ascribe to it, is the very representation of non-existence.
For me active=exists. Whether you call this inactive, immutable thingness god or emptiness or certainty or perfect or atom really does not alter the underlying meaning.

eyesinthedark wrote:

He does not believe in a higher law, such as my harmony of dissonance/opposites and cyclical change, for he believes things are merely changing, and the universe in time, may turn into something completely different than it currently is. Although he may be right, there is just too much order here for me to ignore, but it is not a judeochristian hindubuddhist order, it is an indifferent order, a cold, hard, meaningless order, a mathematical one, caring not for the affairs of life on earth or anywhere else. At least a partial synthesis of all possibilities, hard and soft, curved and straight, life and death.

"Higher" law?
If you define where this "higher" with no other height comes from, or what it means, I might submit.

Laws, like meanings, are manmade. Man creates laws so as to order and understand himself and his existence.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Essentially, to reiterate, I am more of the Heraclitean school, or of the Daoist school, to sum up my positions contra Satyr's, I am more/less a dialectical monist. He is not an atomist, I don't think, he is a believer in chaos.

I am a Heraclitean minus the shore.
Monism for me is a necessary but inaccurate representation of reality. There is no monad to be found and whatever monad is imagined or projected it always relies on existing outside reality or as a coming state or as a state pushing reality forward, from behind.
I cannot and will not base my worldview on anything which is outside my experiences of the world itself.
I will not pretend to know about what I have no business knowing.
Spirituality is waning because in this age of rationalism all is designated "knowable". To prove it retards constructs methods of pretense with no substance....relying upon human fear and hopes to cover up their failings.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Edit- Right, not merely activity, Satyr, your position is chaotic activity that, according to the laws of chance, occasionally but not inevitably, gives rise to order. Yours is the bleakest and blackest of views (save Gorgias), for even the atomists believe there is a solidity, a stability to the universe, in the form of irreducibles, and the Platonists (going in the opposite direction), the forms, or universals.

"Bleak" is an emotional argument with no substance.
To call something sad will not make it go away.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Me, I do not believe anything is solid, everything is subject to change, from atoms to stars, and things even bigger and smaller than they, but I believe solid laws that govern change (or perhaps they are cyclical too? ?), and the highest two laws are- cyclical temporal and spatial change, and harmony of dissonance. The higher laws are made up of the lower laws we're familiar with and conversely the lower laws are made out of the higher laws.

Then you might consider the possibility that these "laws" are nothing more than human constructs denoting perceivable, within the small lifespan of the human race, and of life in general, of repeating, consistent patterns.

Just a "quick" reply.

Quote :

Satyr wrote: Right...the old complexity argument.

Much to cover but let us remain on a few points.
Perhaps this can splinter off into a thread of its own.

The idea of complexity, you might agree, is relative to the mind that perceives it.

I agree, everything seems at least partially relative to the mind, or to something else. What is complex to a monkey is simple to me, what is complex to me is simple to a God. 5 + 5 + 5 = is a simple equation to me, to a monkey it is complex. 98 x 8951 is a complex equation for me to do in my head, but to a mathematician, it may be simple equation to do in his head.

Quote :

As with the eye the final concept which can be called a seeing eye is preceded by multiple forms which cannot be called an eye: like a photosensitive cell.
I would say a cell is also a case of a final product of human understanding which has been proceeded by multiple other, failed, forms of order which cannot be called a cell but which represent intermediary stages leading up to it. I would say a cell is also a case of a final product of human understanding which has been proceeded by multiple other, failed, forms of order which cannot be called a cell but which represent intermediary stages leading up to it.

I wouldn't say they failed, they succeeded for a relatively long period of time, then they failed, cancers fail, the intermediate stages between modern eyes and protoeyes didn't altogether fail.

Quote :

I can only offer a thesis based on a perceptible world; one I use to extrapolate, deduce, the parts I have no knowledge of.
An absence of knowledge does not make every hypothesis equally plausible, more so it makes the ones claiming certainty all the more needy and weak.

I got into philosophy because I prefer probabilities to certainties, not just aesthetically, but because when we think in probabilities, we're honest with ourselves, as we're finite, limited beings. Even if God were to come down and reveal all the secrets of the universe to me, as a finite, limited being, I would still have doubts (can I trust God, is God really omniscient, how can I be certain he is omniscient?). This makes the bible and other works of mythology all the more ludicrous, for even if it was inspired by the word of God, his words were written, interpreted, rewritten and reinterpreted by men, so in some respects, you're still placing your trust in fallible men (did they hear God right, were the biased?). I suppose the counterargument could be that God made sure the men could hear him and weren't biased, but what about the thousands of men who came after them, who rewrote and reinterpreted the bible? Are we to believe that none of them erred, but I digress.

Quote :

In whatever way this protolifeform came about one thing is for sure - or more probable - it did not sexually reproduce.
It, most likely, divided, making itself, making your "incest" scenario unnecessary.

Yes, the incest scenario wouldn't apply to these single celled, asexual organisms, only some relatively modern ones (modern as in the last several hundred million years).

No one can be certain of anything, and this is not a problem for me, as absolute certainty bores me and is dishonest. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think we can be at all certain of how life evolved, only that it most probably did evolve, and I am merely proposing that order arising from order (life arising from other life, orderly mutations) seems like a more plausible scenario, since it is easier to destroy than to create, but heck I could be wrong, perhaps it was a combination of the two. Since the conservation of DNA seems to operate in an orderly fashion, I'd imagine the progression of DNA operates in an orderly fashion as well.

*I'll respond to the rest of your posts when I have time and energy, I have not had sugar or caffeine today.

Quote :

When it comes to the concept of "life" what we are dealing with - and this goes back to the previous point - is an alteration in (inter)activity. What I mean to say is that when it comes to inanimate matter we can say that it is random activity which comes about by activity itself - pure causality - but when it comes to "life" we are adding the element of will. This is where I disagree with Schopenhauer and as a consequence with Nietzsche.
To say that existence has a Will, or can be reduced to Will, is to imply a consciousness.
For me "Will" is the great mystery, for it describes a kind of (inter)activity which is not random but is determined by a judgment.

I think chaos is more probable than order. If I roll dice, I have a greater chance of getting, say, 11, then 10, then 2, then 6, or 5, then 4, then 2, then 9, than I would 6, then 6, then 6, then 6, or 8, then 8, then 8, then 8, as there's more opportunities to add things up nonsensically and nonsequentially than sensically and sequentially. Therefore, without even empirically referencing the universe, there probably isn't a God, or even more determinism and order than freedom and chaos. Quantum Physics would seem to confirm this to a degree, and as far as I can understand quantum physics, there doesn't seem to be much order occurring there, whether it be material, energetic, spatial, temporal or formal/stylistic (circles, squares, spheres, cubes, etc) order. As you've pointed out, the universe seems to be filled with more absence and chaos than presence and order, making life all the more rare, and all the precious from our vantage point. Order can occasionally be generated out of this quantum chaos in the form of atoms, compounds and alloys, and atoms, compounds and alloys can combine to generate greater order (moons, planets and stars). Life is the ultimate order, as it is an order that automatically and manually preserves itself, as opposed to just automatically. Sapiens are the ultimate form of life we've encountered thus far, as we are the most capable of manually preserving ourselves and creating order wherever and whenever we go. Order can come from chaos, but not all orders can come from chaos. Atoms don't seem to appear out of nothing, or chaos, they seem to be born when stars, another, higher form of material order, perish (ordo ab ordo). We've never encountered life arising from nonlife, but from life, (ordo ab ordo). Ordo ab ordo is inherently more probably than ordo ab chao, or at least more plausible. Order can birth chaos and chaos order, but it is more likely order will birth order than chaos, but I suppose it is a carousel of sorts. Order can turn into chaos more easily than chaos can turn into order, so chaos has the advantage and that would make chaos the master of the universe. Consequently it is chaos that is God, and not God that is God, or an anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity (absolute order). This makes order all the more precious and, fragile, vulnerable, especially, particularly more sophisticated forms of order, like ourselves (why some bacteria are nearly indestructible).

After giving it some thought, I've made a partial concession to you. I think chaos is more dominant than order (assuming that is what you are saying, but regardless of whether that is what you believe or not, that is what I've come to believe, based on mathematical and empirical grounds), but I still believe life is more likely to come from life than nonlife. Now, empirically, no one has seem life arise from nonlife, nor can we be certain someone has seen extraterrestrial life or life arrive here on an asteroid from another world, however, I still think this is more plausible that life originating from nonlife. On evolution, I'm divided, I suppose I'm still leaning toward my position: evolution is more orderly (a natural, not a supernatural order) than we think it is, but I'm not close to being certain. Chaos is God, in that it reigns, but not consciously of course, most unconsciously, and creating order does seem to be an act of rebellion contra God.

I do not believe order is inherently subjective, I think there is objectively less order in a shattered glass than in a glass, and I do not like how you equate disorder with ignorance. For example, when I give you this sequence of numbers- 9738, it is not that there is a hidden order there that you have failed to comprehend, it is a case of there being no order to comprehend. Understanding doesn't imply order, I don't think. We have perceived quantum physics and it is not orderly, of course there may be some order there that our minds have failed to grasp, in fact I think there is some order there, though relatively less than our world, but as far as we can tell, quantum physics is retarded or more retarded than this one or the macroworld.

As for the universe being defined as will, I think the universes possesses willful and unwillful interactivity, but more unwillful than willful. Will is not mysterious to me, I am will, you are will, how could you be mysterious to yourself? Will may be mysterious to a man who bases everything he knows on the external world, a behaviorist, but not a man capable of introspection, and who gives credence to introspection. Will exists, whether a very elaborate combination of physical interactions, or whether something alien to the physical, or, whether will is born of nonwill and can return to nonwill, or generate other wills within ones self, is another, interesting matter, one that is puzzles me, but it certainly exists, whatever it's relation to representation. I myself am it, and from my point of view, it is very distinct, and not much like the world revealed to me by my senses.

I think the universe is infinite in times and spaces, although I am not at all certain of this, and I do not think it is decreasing or increasing in order, and though order seems to be maintaining itself, sustaining itself, chaos seems to be more prevalent. Of course, I understand your empiricism, but you yourself make broad assertions about the universe, extrapolating, inferring and projecting beyond the data, hence your entropic principle, and your activity principle, metaphysics is not alien to you, though your metaphysics is more cautious than some.

I guess order and chaos are somewhat relative, so, this may be objectively more orderly than that, but there is no- there is more order than disorder in the universe (empirically, phenomenally speaking), unless you refer to my mathematical principle (order is more probably than disorder), and there is no absolute order/disorder. Math and language are infinitely more capable of producing, and dare I say, of discovering absolutes than sensualism. Sensually, relatively speaking, there seems to be more order than disorder in the universe, especially when you jump outside of our planet, mathematically speaking, there is absolutely more disorder than order in the universe. I can say this with the utmost confidence and certitude.

I'm starting to understand philosophically just how shitty the universe is (don't get me wrong though, I never had a rosy picture of the universe). Because we live in one of the more orderly parts of the universe, we mistake our little bubble, our little box for the hole, but when we burst our bubble, peer out of our box, and when we begin to reflect deeply on the principles of mathematics, we come to the realization that the universe is in fact, and not for lack of a better word, shit, it can best be described as shit, and both Platonic Christians and enlightenment philosophers- Locke, Voltaire, Galileo and Newton were wrong, especially Platonic Christians, the universe is in fact shit with pockets of gold in it. Life is very delicate, it is amazing we got this far, this could all vanish rather quickly. Well, my philosophical journey has brought me to this point, but I'll have to further reflect on these principles.

Quote :

This Will as animating force is the easiest scenario as it does away with the problem of how and why life came about or, as you put it, how order is produced in a chaotic world.
I do not ascribe to this because I do not have to. I do not have to because my motive is not to appear or to claim to be omnipotent or someone who knows it all, but only one who can offer the most plausible explanation for a shared experience.
I also do not ascribe to it because it stinks of religion....it is but a different way of saying the same monistic bullshit every other religion says, but only in a more sophisticated and mystical way.

In other words, because I deny the absolute I cannot claim it for myself, as omnipotence. I only claim a superior standpoint.
I do not claim to understand all; I claim to understand more than the average or more than the one who is challenging me.
This distinction is important.
Of course the retards I deal with cannot but fall into the trap of thinking in absolute terms, because they cannot think outside of them. Therefore when I claim to have a superior position they take this to mean that I claim a position of infallibility or omniscience...but I do not as this would contradict the first and primary principle in my philosophy which is the absence of all absolutes.
When I resit or contradict their simplistic counter-points they take this as arrogance or that I am pretending to be all-knowing. For them an unwillingness to offer the benefit of the doubt to whatever stupidity they use to defend themselves against my positions means that I am closed to any challenging position.
The ideal for them would be a mind who only half-heartily believes in the things he does, and quickly buckles or shows cracks in his armor with the slightest challenge.

Right, you are a very down to earth person, you don't claim to know it all, nor do you claim to know nothing. All things are possible but not probable, I understand this about you, it is something I admire about you, and with time and practice, hopefully I can become as disciplined as you.

"There is no religion higher than truth".

Mohandas Gandhi

Quote :

It is not one because "order" is not something which exists outside the human mind, if it is taken in the absolute.
Let me explain...the term order/disorder are words. They are terms used by human minds to orient themselves and to achieve some understanding.
There is no absolute order or disorder...and so these are simply ideals projected as antipodes so as to construct, in their midst or in the interplay between them a worldview.
They are tools for understanding.
So, when we say "order" we always mean a state in relation to the one observing, just as when we say beautiful we mean the same, or when we say tall or strong of long-lived or large we mean the same.
Something is considered ordered when it, in relation to the mind observing, exhibits a consistent predictability which can be used to predict and successfully guide the organism on whose behalf this mind is working.

Tall may be relative, a twenty foot tall giraffe is short, a 10 foot tall human is long, but we wouldn't expect a giraffe to give birth to a 5 foot tall giraffe, nor would we expect a human to give birth to a 40 foot tall human, now would we? Nor, would we expect tornadoes to be capable of building airplanes and rhesus monkeys to be capable of building rocket ships.

Quote :

So, when we say "order" we always mean a state in relation to the one observing, just as when we say beautiful we mean the same, or when we say tall or strong of long-lived or large we mean the same.
Something is considered ordered when it, in relation to the mind observing, exhibits a consistent predictability which can be used to predict and successfully guide the organism on whose behalf this mind is working.
When we say chaos we mean the opposite. We mean that the phenomena are becoming far too complex for the mind observing to find predictable repetitive structures so as to use to predict...the mind interpret the extreme of this as darkness, or black: void.
This does not mean that the mind is entirely off base, as the mind is a product of the universe and so its interpretations must have something to do with the phenomena it is observing. It means that what is occurring, in relation to the mind observing,is incomprehensible and that it is happening at a rate where the mind cannot keep up, using evolution.
Technology can be the mind compensating with innovation to deal with this failure. It is a speeding up of adaptation.

It is erroneous to equate disorder with nothingness. There exists more order and less mass in one fly than in a pile of dog turds. In a way, nothingness is the ultimate order, for what could be more uniform than nothing?
It is erroneous to equate disorder with a lack of comprehension. When a nigger does something stupid we call him stupid, we do not say he is a genius, or his behavior is too advanced, complex and intricate to comprehend, or his motivations and reasons allude us, he has no reasons and motivations, or they're out of alignment with his behavior, unbeknownst to him. Sometimes things don't have a pattern, or they have a lesser pattern. If I can't see a pattern, the problem isn't necessarily me, my ignorance or stupidity, in some cases it may be my ignorance and stupidity, but in others there may be nothing to comprehend. I highly doubt I'm missing the pattern in 8 6 R Q 2 X. There are three numbers and three letters there but their arrangement is completely arbitrary and random. How long do you have to stare at them before you decide that there is no pattern, or do you always assume there is a pattern just beyond your grasp, or that there may be a pattern? I can see them, I am aware of their arrangement, yet there is no pattern to their arrangement. I can reproduce the arrangement 8 6 R Q 2 X, yet the arrangement is nonsensical, proving nonsense can be perceived, remembered, reproduced and, in a sense, comprehended. Nonsense is a something. Nothing cannot be ordered or disordered, just as nothing cannot move up or down, left or right, forward or backward.

Quote :

In short, order/disorder are not things, absolutes, which exist out there and the mind becomes aware of them.
Order/Disorder, like evil/good, like black/white, like up/down, are mental construct meant to facilitate the organism's Becoming or ongoing (inter)activity in its attempt to sustain itself against constant change or constant activity.

I think you unfairly discriminate against colors. Perhaps it is truer to say colors seem less there than other physical qualities/quantities. It is true black tables don't interact with other objects any differently than white tables, where as black tables do interact with other objects differently than black chairs. There are two tests for objectivity I can think of, now. One is the peak a boo test, you're still there when I reopen my eyes. Colors pass this test. The other is the other one mentioned above, the interactivity test. Colors fails this test. Of course nothing may exist independently of our minds, including order, colors and shapes, but I don't want to get into this right now. It seems like they do, and for all practical purposes they do.

Quote :

Think of it as a level of order which in relation to the average is trying to freeze itself (eternal), make of itself an absolute in a reality which lacks it. Of course this happens on a visceral level and only in relation to a mind which can think in terms of order/disorder. Life, in its simplest form is simply self-replicating ordering in (re)action to increasing disordering.

I like this definition of life.

Quote :

Now, if we take the Big Bang as a seminal point, a metaphor, then it represents the point where (inter)activity reaches the closest point to the absolute or to absolute inertia, inactivity: pure Being...and what the Buddhists call emptiness. It is obvious that this hypothetical, theoretical, metaphorical, point, whether it is a real event or not, would be considered by the living organism, which is an ordering in the disordering, a very seductive one...a point of paradise, Godliness reached but not attained.

I don't think there's anything alive about a big nothing, nor do I think there's anything alive about a big nothing. Both of them are equally dead. A big something is more aesthetically appealing than a big nothing, as a big something makes me think of love, gravity and unity, where as a big nothing makes me think of hate, repulsion and division, although the latter are occasionally attractive to me, like when I'm in a bad mood, naturally. Both would mean the end of me, we're a product of this limbo state between a big something and a big nothing, this cycling of things, so it is this cycle we should worship and attempt to perpetuate. Neither the big something or the big nothing exist, and though they are opposite, they both mean the end of ourselves and the universe as we know it, so we should fear them. They are both orderly, in a sense uniform...... so...... I guess to much order is a bad thing, then? Perhaps life and the Goldilocks zone are this harmony of dissonance, this perfect state, this balance, this equilibrium between all things, positive order- gravity, density and something on the one hand, and negative order- repulsion, sparsity, and nothing on the other, or a moderation of moderation. This is hurting my brain a little. Is life disorder, or some combination of order and disorder?

Quote :

But let us take disordering (increasing entropy) and ordering (which can be projected as anything from God to thingness or an ideology)...what does it mean?
It means that in relation to the observer - in this case man is made into a focal point, a pivot, a nexus - existence exhibits certain tendencies or trends, towards which life and consciousness stands in subjective relation to.
So, in relation to life the world can only be increasing in entropy as only towards this tendency can consciousness or the level of ordering which we call life can come about.
We can speculate about increasing ordering or of an absolute state of inertia but all of that is nonsensical in that it can never be sensed or validated and must always remain speculative.
So much so that entire world-views and religions can be built on a premise which is totally antithetical to the experienced. These I call nihilistic, as they nullify the experience of living, constitute it irrelevant, a joke, a hoax, a grand game played upon us by some imagines, unsubstantiated Being.

No, these religions are evil, we want disorder, fragmentation, or orderly disorder, yes, that is what we want. Some religions want abolish the ego (Hinduism, Buddhism, Parmenides, Gorgias, etc) and other religions want to maintain it, forever (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc). Both of them are retarded but at least Judaism and Christianity have their heart in the right place. Yes, I am giving you something different than your used to, did you pick up the majority of your thinking on this from Nietzsche, someone else, or did you come up with it yourself?

Chaos is the God (from a mathematical and empirical standpoint) of this universe and Chaos is good. What we want is a more perfect chaos, an orderly disorder as opposed to a disorderly disorder. We want all objects and particularly subjects to fragment and individuate, and to maintain an equilibrium of conflicting qualities and quantities.
Look at the winds of Jupiter, they are far more orderly and predictable than earth winds, and more powerful as a result, which is why nothing can live long and prosper over there. We want a balance of opposites, we want conflict and more conflict, we do not want a monopoly of forces, monopoly is anathema to us. When you boil it down, Heraclitus and particularly his student Cratylus, their paradigm is the most reflective of reality and the one we want, small cyclical change as opposed to big cyclical change (Empedocles), or no change at all (a perfect order- Parmenides with his positive order, Gorgias with his negative order). Humans are the epitome of monopolistic lifeforms, we are creating order, rebelling against the universe, and thus, we are evil (particularly progressives). We need more disorder, more fragmentation, more chaos, more rape, pillage and plunder, more suffering, more turmoil.

Or rather, we want lasting spring or fall, as opposed to lasting summer or winter, or mild seasons as opposed to extreme seasons. We do not want a biological or physical force to monopolize. Perhaps humans can invent an eternal spring, or perhaps we should be satisfied with the way things are, they could have been much, much worse, like they are on Venus (summer) or Mars (winter).

eyesinthedark wrote:

It is erroneous to equate disorder with nothingness. There exists more order and less mass in one fly than in a pile of dog turds. In a way, nothingness is the ultimate order, for what could be more uniform than nothing?

No-thing is part of the same worldview that posits a Some-thing.
A "thing" is a mental construct as it is a simplification/generalization of an activity, a process with no end and no beginning, exhibiting only divergence in rate, which the mind interprets as form, color, texture, smell, sound etc.

For me chaos is an increase in unpredictability, quantum uncertainty...randomness. Now, we might argue that random is only a reference to a mind that cannot find patterns in it, but I do not deal with hypotheticals which are not based on experience, on empiricism.
I take man as the center and extrapolate backwards, into history, and forwards into the future. My metaphysics is grounded on physics.
The past represents a state where there was less unpredictability, approaching the absolutely predictable and certain. Entropy simply means this increase, which is known to us as the arrow of time, a direction towards which we oppose or resist.
It is this relationship of opposition to the flow of time which man calls need/suffering.

Flow of time is also understood as past/future, with the present being some ambiguous static state, akin to the particle or any absolute; the here and now.

eyesinthedark wrote:

This is hurting my brain a little. Is life disorder, or some combination of order and disorder?

Life is an ordering.
The terms order/disorder should not be taken as absolutes, as things, as static states...they are human projections of absolutes meant to facilitate comprehension.

The term some-thing implies an ambiguous "thing", in the word "some". It is this term which ideologists try to replace with a myriad human constructs, such as God, perfect, particle, here, now, self, one etc.
It lends itself to any projection for the very reasons as it is a projection of an object/objective which is not present, it is absent. It is this absence which is experienced by a conscious mind as need/suffering.

Here a new definition of existence is necessary.
Existence is not a thing, a trait which another thing, a thing-in-itself, possesses; existence is activity, dynamism...which can only be experienced by freezing it, simplifying it into objects or static conditions, abstractions.
We see here the opposition at work as the mind arrests the Flux into points in space-time, projecting, imagining, creating static points in an otherwise dynamic state.

Therefore existence and action are one and the same. I am active because I exist; I exist because I am active. Existence, like activity is not something I perform or posses, it is not a trait, but what I am.
What is inactive, inert, static is the very contemplation, imagining, of the non-existent. This is the great "beyond" existence, the "outside" the world which is what dualism is all about.
I am activity, I am action.
Whatever I perceive is active to one degree or another, even though this activity may not be immediately perceptible.
I look at a metal wall...it seems static, unmoving....years later I return to see it rusting...I realize that it had been active even when I had first seen it....more so I realize that it rests upon a moving planet, rotating, moving within space-time even if I am not aware of it immediately. Everything about me, everything I perceive is in action...it is (inter)acting.
Time and the other dimensions is how I measure this activity. Space is how I've evolved to project the possibilities of this activity.

Will is the focus of this action upon an object/objective...it is idealism personified after it has reached a certain level of sophistication, otherwise in its most basic form it is simply a drive towards what promises its own continuance and growth - Will to Life as Schopenhauer pointed out. A brainless organism which only has a nervous system is blind activity directed towards what is like itself...or towards the possibility of itself.

These abstractions like things, God, dualistic terms like here/there, now/before or after, one/zero are but methods of orienting the Will....it is the "towards" (or "to") part of the linguistic formula Will towards Life or Will to Power.

Will is the control and direction of the aggregate energies at the emerging unity's disposal (the sum total of its past as it manifests in a Becoming) - To or towards is the movement, the direction, the activity itself - and the last part in the sentence, which can be anything as it is a some-thing (it can be Will to God) is the object/objective...the human projection of an ideal state, a static state, an absolute.

eyesinthedark wrote:

No, these religions are evil, we want disorder, fragmentation, or orderly disorder, yes, that is what we want. Some religions want abolish the ego (Hinduism, Buddhism, Parmenides, Gorgias, etc) and other religions want to maintain it, forever (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc). Both of them are retarded but at least Judaism and Christianity have their heart in the right place.

"Evil" is an emotional term.
Nihilism comes in many forms, one of which is the current one, the materialism we know as modernity, is a form we feel as being "positive".

Whatever denounces the world as it is, as constant activity, (inter)activity, veering towards increasing unpredictability or randomness, is a nihilist, even if the message he hides his life denouncement in is one that feels good.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Yes, I am giving you something different than your used to, did you pick up the majority of your thinking on this from Nietzsche, someone else, or did you come up with it yourself?

Nietzsche was an influence but more so Schopenhauer, as he was an influence on both me and Nietzsche...and Heraclitus above them all.
More so Heidegger, but we can consider him a disciple of Nietzsche...but he exceeded his mentor in metaphysics. His Being and Time had a big effect on me. It brought Heraclitus up to speed with the modern era.

I don't know what all this Nietzsche crap comes form, but it is based, as he admits himself, in Hellenism.
Am I following Nietzsche or are we both following Hellenic thinking?
Most moderns, particularly the younger ones, have only Nietzsche as their focal point, because he was the first one to introduce them to a school of thought Heraclitus represented which they had no contact with because we live in a Jewish age or one where Judaism injected with Platonism is rooted in Parmenides.
Nietzsche did not invent the notion of reality as fluidity. He did not invent Apollo and Dionysus.
He did not even come up with the notion of the Will.
He adopted them from others and with eloquence exceeding our time fused them with psychological insights to diagnose the present post-modern age.

I don't want to seem arrogant, but a lot of it is based on my own contemplations which I later found out, or was told, was proposed by another, famous, thinker.

But I've drawn inspiration from many sources.

I disagree with all the people I find an affinity in.
If we take Sauwelios as an expert on Nietzsche then his claim the his mentor proposed a Primeval One finds me in disagreement...and I disagree with both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer about the nature of the Will...and I find Nietzsche "eternal recurrence" a waste of time.
As a psychologist and sociologists I found Nietzsche brilliant, not so much as a meta-physician.
As a meta-physician I found Schopenhauer brilliant, and his comments on people (women, academics) were also brilliant, but his response to the state he was aware of was Buddhist and without I find myself imitating his style of life, the older I get, but I do not claim it to be the only way.

If we consider the origins of the early universe, it would seem that it was a breakdown in order, and the subsequent chaos that led to our existence today.

Life only exists because of an assymmetry in the universe, an excess of matter to antimatter, of baryons to anti-baryons.

Asymmetry has led to a dissolution of order, which has resulted in life.
It is imperfection that has resulted in our emergence. A disturbance in the perfectly symmetrical, expanding Flux which led to cosmic imbalances where pockets of matter have been able to accrue within these irregularities into the first stars and galaxies.
For two hundred million years there was only darkness, until slowly the first stars began to burn. These stars were likely quite massive and luminous.

Quote :

"According to the cosmological models, the first small systems capable of forming stars should have appeared between 100 million and 250 million years after the big bang. These protogalaxies would have been 100,000 to one million times more massive than the sun and would have measured about 30 to 100 light-years across."

I know this is somewhat simple but this does reflect the evolution of life on Earth, the earliest multicellular organisms being more primitive and larger in scale than those that followed.

If the universe expanded perfectly, all matter annhialating with anti matter, leaving only a sea of photons, no heavier elements would have been created, and hence no galaxies, no stars and no life.

Eyes' description of Jupiter's winds is apt here, as what is more powerful is more ordered, more predictable. On micro-cosmic scales the situation is more complex, at quantum levels order can only be deduced probalistically.

evolution is a weakening of the organism, a dissolution, a coming apart.
The same can be applied to life on Earth and hominid biology. Consider blacks, their physical nature is stronger than whites, more robust, denser, as a result they are more predictable, their dancing and actions and thoughts more synchronized, more uniform.

But what I found of significance in the knowledge of symmetry breaking, is its supprt for gnosticism, the idea that the world was forged by a demigod. There is certainly more scientific evidence for this now than for the Christian God of absolute perfection and love. Could it be true that the very stars are the work of an imperfect being in whose nature we share? The Cathars, for example, believed this until they were destroyed by the Catholic Church.

Lucifer has the same root as the latin lux, meaning 'light bringer or morning star'.
"the angel of the abyss, named Abaddon in Hebrew, Apollyon in Greek (Revelation 9:11)"
"Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun, truth and prophecy, healing, plague, music, poetry, and more."

It's not something I personally ascribe to, and if I did speak of a demigod it would not neccessarily be a conscious being, but more of a geometry. But the parralels with biblical texts are there.

Consider carbon, the element upon which all life is based. It's atomic number is 666, the number of the Beast.

I've done the homework for you:

Quote :

"In humans, melanin is the primary determinant of skin color. It is also found in hair, the pigmented tissue underlying the iris of the eye, and the stria vascularis of the inner ear. In the brain, tissues with melanin include the medulla and zona reticularis of the adrenal gland, and pigment-bearing neurons within areas of the brainstem, such as the locus coeruleus and the substantia nigra."

"High levels of neuromelanin are also detected in other primates, and in carnivores such as cats and dogs"

"The most common form of biological melanin is eumelanin, a brown-black polymer of dihydroxyindole carboxylic acids, and their reduced forms."

"Carboxylic acids are organic acids characterized by the presence of at least one carboxyl group. A carboxyl group (or carboxy) is a functional group consisting of a carbonyl (RR'C=O) and a hydroxyl (R-O-H), which has the formula -C(=O)OH, usually written as -COOH or -CO2H

"In organic chemistry, a carbonyl group is a functional group composed of a carbon atom double-bonded to an oxygen atom: C=O. It is common to several classes of organic compounds, as part of many larger functional groups."

I can hear Satyr already... hold onto your seats the lunatics are in town. But wait. Consider the representations of the Devil in Western art, as a part animal, part human beast, and then tell me that the above does not strike a ring of truth.

We are a product of cosmic imperfection.

Vanitas wrote:

I can hear Satyr already... hold onto your seats the lunatics are in town. But wait. Consider the representations of the Devil in Western art, as a part animal, part human beast, and then tell me that the above does not strike a ring of truth.

We are a product of cosmic imperfection.

Of course imperfection/perfection are, again, human terms based on nothing more than binary thinking drawing from something as basic as preference or preference as it is produced by need.

The universe is neither perfect nor prefect....as these are human abstractions which only serve to direct the mind.

Also, to use the term "origins" is buying into the same pool from whence Judeo-Christianity finds sustenance.

Watch this video of Hitchens debating some retard creationist and see how handily he is defeated, left to repeat his usual mantra; the poem he recites because it is so effective against the average run-o-the-mill Christian apologist.



Why does he lose, or rather why does he flounder never addressing any of the creationist's assaults?
Because he is buying into the same myth his simpler opponent takes literally. He is taken over by secular humanism, the antipode to the same Jewish tripe.

For instance, he (Hitchens) buckles at the mention of the Big Bang, as both accept beginnings as a given; he does not once challenge, in any passionate way, the assertion that life is sacred or that it is wonderfully balanced; he not once explains what morality is or what survival, self-serving, advantage it serves.

To explain his failings one can only choose between these possibilities:

1- He was having a bad day....perhaps under the effects of his alter to develop illness...or as a result of his legendary boozing.

2- He was ignorant of philosophy or he was reluctant to contradict his opponent because this would leave his own Christian secular views exposed to the same critique.

Yes, order and disorder are absolutes, the universe could be infinitely more orderly or disorderly than it is now, potentially, theoretically. We could only meaningfully call the universe orderly or disorderly if we could compare it with another universe. However, my mathematical principle suggests the universe is probably more disorderly than orderly.

I realize words like good/evil, beauty/ugly have no meaning outside of the mind who speaks them and feels them, it would seem, except in other minds. I used them anyway, I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of their objectivity.

Things may exist that are inert, but we'll never know about them, as knowing is a form of interaction, like the way light bounces off objects and hits our eyes.

Life exists due to a fine balance of biological and physical forces, extremes like a big explosion/extreme sparsity, or a big implosion/extreme density are harmful to life as we know it.

Everything we know of including ourselves is changing, the mind does freeze the changing, relative universe into static, absolute frames to comprehend it, and then many began worshiping these static, absolute frames as if they existed externally, hence the soul, this perfect me, an unborn, unchanging and undying me, existing in parallel with the born, changing and dying me. Since the bodies death is more apparent, some imagined the mind to be a soul, but the mind changes too, more than changes, it is born and it dies. Hypothetically speaking, it may be possible for the mind to change without essentially, fundamentally dying, where it remains essentially, fundamentally the same, giving hope to the transhumanists. I am not one of them, as I think such things are highly unlikely. Finding the ideal in the real, or engineering, manufacturing the ideal out of the real, could be said to be the hallmark of modernity, a peculiar hybrid of Atomism or Heraclitus and Platonic Christianity.

You could say atoms are a product of this search for solidity, as are Plato's forms, as is Parmenides' big something and Gorgias' big nothing. Xenophanes' God, Thales' water, Anaximander's and Anaximanes' air, Empedocles' four elements and Anaxagoras' mind. Only Heraclitus (orderly change) and his pupil Cratylus (disorderly change) believed all things are changing.

There are many similarities between Heraclitus' metaphysics and Daoist metaphysics.
Nietzsche borrowed from Heraclitus, but he also borrowed from Callicles, most likely.
Do you think there's a correlation between Heraclitus' metaphysics and Callicles' ethics?

Everything changes (chaos), from stars and planets to protons, neutrons and electrons, but something must remain (order), or there'd be nothing to talk about and we wouldn't be here.

What remains is the way things change (eternal recurrence), the stages they go through. Now, this recurrence may not be eternal, it may only be temporal, but nonetheless it is occurring. Therefore, although all things are relative, they seem to exist in perfect proportion to their other, dynamic chaos in perfect harmony with static order, diverse forces neutralizing each other into a fine balance. You think I am seeing more order than is there.

Ha, funny how some punk like me can discuss these things with someone as intelligent as yourself, where as some university professor like Faust admits he can only understand that Cat Dan's metaphysics. What an idiot, Faust is, he should quit his job, he is a disgrace to his profession. What good is philosophy if it has no practical application?

*I should add there is spatial recurrence in addition to temporal recurrence, things repeat themselves both across times and spaces. We don't know for certain whether this recurrence is eternal or temporary, but it allows us to make sense of our universe. I believe this is how the ancients viewed the world., a tug o' war between biological and physical forces, neither one gaining the upper hand for very long. The Goldilocks zone is a more perfect neutrality, where each force keeps the other in check, greater order, smaller cycles, giving life a chance to flourish. Some believe humans can further improve our condition (humanists), whilst others believe meddling and tampering with nature will only make things worse in the long run (antihumanists).

*I'll get back to Vanitas sometime later on.

Defining reality as activity, motion or change, is a little misleading.

If you were to ask me what something is, and I replied that it is change, I wouldn't be telling you what it is, I would be telling you that it is difficult or impossible to tell you what it is, a bit like dodging the question. The question should then be, what, if anything, remains, or, if nothing remains in all times and places, then at least what comparatively remains in many, more or most times and places? I mean, saying the only constant is change borders on nihilism. If you can't give me an example of something that never changes, at least give me an example of something that is relatively unchanging. It could be a law of nature, or a class of objects. Something that explains a good portion of reality.

Relativism is something else I've noticed about him, he's a relativist. I tend to agree with him regarding activity and relativity, but is there nothing absolute, nothing transcendent? What about logic and mathematics?

eyesinthedark wrote:

Defining reality as activity, motion or change, is a little misleading.

If you were to ask me what something is, and I replied that it is change, I wouldn't be telling you what it is, I would be telling you that it is difficult or impossible to tell you what it is, it is a bit like dodging the question.

As would it be to define it as a "thing".

But I do not define it as change, as change indicates a divergence between two abstractions; a juxtaposition of perceptions, though they might happen almost instantaneously.
In fact consciousness is the constant juxtaposition of abstractions - mental snapshots - in quick succession, creating the perception of movement.

I define existence as activity, more precisely as (inter)activity. It is process exhibiting differentiation sin rate of activity.
To ask "What is acting?" is to presuppose what you are asking for. This error is caused by the way the mind functions, and subsequent by how language symbolizes this mental limitation or necessity - remember need is a symptom of weakness or imperfection.

The mind, in order to make sense of a fluid reality, must freeze it and distinguish it, by simplification/generalization, into morsels which it then can reincorporate into grander models.
The mind orders the disordering, and in this it is a (re)action (reactionary), or rebellious or a form of rejection. This is why it often results in nihilism, as a rejection of the real, it is also why the male mind is characterized by a need to order, which is the extreme projection of his world-renouncement, whereas the female attitude submits to the flow, hoping to merge, or re-merge, with the absolute disordered, also called void or emptiness, and this is the extreme projection of her world-renouncement.

The balance is, of course, the desired and it is only possible with some control, or when the masculine attitude takes over not to denounce the feminine but to use it, to direct it, to master it.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The question should then be, what, if anything, remains, or, if nothing remains in all times and places, then at least what comparatively remains in many, more or most times and places?

"Remains" where?
You are assuming what you ask for and then demanding that someone justifies it.
there is no here or now for this thing or some-thing, to remain...there is only flow, in relation to life, and flux, in relation to existence.

The difference between flow and flux, as I use the terms, is that with "flow" a particular arrow of time is assumed, or a towards growing entropy, or a towards increasing unpredictability and randomness is implied. This makes our conceptions of time possible, making past and future, with the ambiguous present, all part of our orientation.
Flux, on the other hand implies multidimensional space-time and assumes that as entropy is increasing it is also decreasing with all the possible degrees thrown into the mix in a multidirectional (inter)activity.
This is more difficult to comprehend as it goes against our sense of reality and is counter-intuitive.

eyesinthedark wrote:

I mean, saying the only constant is change borders on nihilism. If you can't give me an example of something that never changes, at least give me an example of something that is relatively unchanging. It could be a law of nature, or a class of objects. Something that explains a good portion of reality.

nihilism is the attitude which contradicts the perceived and the existing.

Why don't you give me an example of some-thing which is not changing?

Quote :

As would it be to define it as a "thing".

But I do not define it as change, as change indicates a divergence between two abstractions; a juxtaposition of perceptions, though they might happen almost instantaneously.
In fact consciousness is the constant juxtaposition of abstractions - mental snapshots - in quick succession, creating the perception of movement.

Is activity not an abstraction, like thing, dog or cat, or do you mean to tell me you have discovered the only concept, the only word in the english language not an abstraction, and thus, you have transcended the limitations of the mind and come into contact with pure phenomena? The mind can't think outside of itself. Perhaps activity means precisely that, something happening outside of a thought or an idea, which can never be fully grasped by binary, freeze frame logic, but which it may be able to catch a glimpse of. Perhaps a higher mind than ours, a 3 dimensional one could fully encompass the phenomenal world.

So for you, reality is fundamentally mysterious, something unknowable, just beyond conception (forgive me if I'm making wild inferences and leaps). It is this activity, no clear distinction between this frame of time and space and that time and space, you believe, is the core of this existence we're attempting to comprehend. We freeze it into neat little spatial and temporal frames, but how can the mind fathom something beyond itself? Maybe frames, distinct cuts of space and time is all there is? Well, I'm just playing with you, I believe reality is something analogue too. Analogue is something related to motion, just as digital is something related to inactivity, but I guess the two are not entirely the same, though, you are also an proponent of analogism, are you not?

Essentially, your philosophy is about escaping the confines of the mind- rationalism, idealism, inactivism, digitalism, binary logic, dichotomies, absolutes, abstractions, universals, these are all tools of the mind to understand that which is to an extent, foreign to it, alien to it, this thing or things which operate independently of it, outside of it's conception and will, and those who live in their heads in motionlessness and binary logic (those who mistake thinking for reality) are schizophrenic, religious retards and nut bags, disconnected and isolated from reality, men like Spinoza and Parmenides, simpletons, they simplify everything when reality and perception is always far more complex and mysterious than the mind can conceive of, and since the mind is this ordering organism, wanting stability so as to understand things, wanting to slow them down, and also preserve themselves in the becoming, the mind has this tendency to partially resist this fact of phenomena, including the withering away of the self, and live in these isolated castles, these ivory towers, mental constructs, like a fairy tale princess, leaving the world behind, like the Buddha, before he took a trip to the real world and awoke to reality, where things decay, are imperfect.

The ones who have higher intelligence can, to an extent, think outside of this binary logic, at least to understand there is more going on than is in their heads, and can also face the reality of a reality that does not want to conform to our neat, rigid expectations of it, a reality that is fundamentally challenging to us, forever frustrating our will, both our mental will to understand and our emotional will to preserve ourselves and the ones we care about, the ones we love, to preserve our minds and bodies.

Some have higher intelligence and courage, and they can face this reality more readily, and they will do better at surviving in it, perhaps, on average, where as retards and emotional cripples will suffer here, although they have the comfort of the soul (the perfect, freeze frame self (I am forever 30 years old, the best I've ever looked, and the smartest I've ever been, for all time, my fairytale, ideal self the artist and the religious man is in touch with), God (the perfect person or perfect being), and heaven (the perfect place) to comfort them, like a drug.

Now, males have a tendency to live in this perfect place, to schizophrenically rebel and isolate themselves from the world, extreme introversion, where as females have a tendency (notice I use the word tendency, acknowledging the limitations of my mind, there is more going on there, there are exceptions to the rule I am establishing) to lose themselves in the world, becoming like children or animals, submitting to death, decay, disorder and spontaneity, living impulsively and moment to moment, without a care, leading me to believe you believe the Joker is, in a sense, a hyper feminine male.

I have always had a tendency to separate myself from the world and live in my head, though occasionally I venture outward, and when I do, I notice I become an extreme Dionysian, you see I do not have control over the feminine within, I am masculine, but when I participate in the world, more than just enough to sustain myself, I become Dionysian, it seems, like it is too much for me to control, and I start drinking and smashing things, stealing and hurting people and myself. The world is overwhelming to me. More so the work aspect of it, so I retreat to my den. I am quite familiar with the rough underbelly of the world, I have seen and done my fair share of wickedness.

I'm kind of a white/black Apollonian/Dionysian, I have trouble integrating the two. I can only maintain Apollo with minimal interference from Dionysus, the world. I don't like the world much, I like it in short bursts. I like my cave where I can control things, if the world forces itself on me, I lose it.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Is activity not an abstraction, like thing, dog or cat, or do you mean to tell me you have discovered the only concept, the only word in the english language not an abstraction, and thus, you have transcended the limitations of the mind and come into contact with pure phenomena?

All words are references, symbols, to a mental model, an abstraction.
They are codified, and so are static symbols.

The challenge is to transcend the limitation imposed upon the mind by the medium and the tool, in this case the brain which can only conceptualize with static models and use binary logic.
Language is an art form, and like all art forms it attempt's to represent the real by idealizing it or by indirectly alluding to what it cannot define directly or completely...also given that absolute awareness and conceptualization is impossible, due to the absence of absolutes.
A painter does something similar when in his paintings he tries to give the impression of movement, or of our dimensional reality, by using colors, shades or a flat board.
There are certain words which best capture the dynamism of the object by using a static form, like a word. They do so by evoking in the mind an experience, like that of movement, by using an inert medium.
Sometimes just the enunciation of the word or how the sound reverberates on the palate and within the sinus cavity gives off the impression.
"Vibration" is a good word.

I use "activity" because ti best combines with the prefixes of "re" and "inter" to express what I am trying to express.

This is why I say that much of this is counter-intuitive and that as someone said a philosopher must be part scientist and part artist.
As you can see for yourself these internet forums are mostly populated by the non-artistic, bland, numbers and geometries, types.

We see in modern science a return to metaphysics or to artistry, in the area of quantum physics where the counter-intuitive is approached.
Take String Theory. It uses the metaphor of a string which is vibrating, oscillating.
Now, you might ask, what is left once the vibration is ceased? I will tell you that nothing is left...literally. To make of this metaphor into a thing, in this case a static string, is to do away with the concept that matters: vibration.
The string is the abstraction through which the concept of activity, as in vibration, makes sense or the only way that it can be conceptualized.
I will say that there is no string at all, but only vibration, only energy which is conceptualized as a string to make it comprehensible.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The mind can't think outside of itself. Perhaps activity means precisely that, something happening outside of a thought or an idea, which can never be fully grasped by binary, freeze frame logic, but which it may be able to catch a glimpse of. Perhaps a higher mind than ours, a 3 dimensional one could fully encompass the phenomenal world.

The brain is a tool which has to order reality by freezing it into a static snapshot.
Ordering is a return to a simpler period....take the Big Bang...it defines a state where the universe was at its simplest.
It manufactures the noumenon as a model of the phenomenon.

This also relates back to feminization as the male attitude is the one resisting disorder, wanting to create order....to create the perfect, the inert, the immutable the godly.
The masculine attitude is what separates, distinguishes, and rejects and challenges the given...in the balance of dualism it represents the self which seeks to stand apart from the other.
A better way to understand it is by using Kazantzakis' metaphor of a God struggling to emerge or to create Himself out of the chaos.
This is the masculine energy of spirit....and spirit stands apart, above the physical, the earthy, the feminine.

eyesinthedark wrote:

So for you, reality is fundamentally mysterious, something unknowable, just beyond conception (forgive me if I'm making wild inferences and leaps).

Yes, it is mystical.
This is what is missing from modern civilization: quality.
Modernism reduces all to quantity...it claims that all is knowable and it resorts to absurdity to make it seem like this is so.

This is what Traditionalists like Yockey, Evola, and Guenon, as well as Nietzsche to some extent were talking about with Apollo versus Dionysus or Alexandrian civilization or their anti-rational stances.

But not all spiritualism is created equal nor do all spiritual dogmas lead to an ascent of man.

eyesinthedark wrote:

It is this activity, no clear distinction between this frame of time and space and that time and space, you believe, is the core of this existence we're attempting to comprehend. We freeze it into neat little spatial and temporal frames, but how can the mind fathom something beyond itself?

This is why not all can accomplish this....the previously mentioned scientist/artist balance must be present. But I can put it another way: there must be a perfect masculine/feminine balance where the masculine has overpowered the feminine within the self; has not silenced it pr denied it but has harnessed it.
In effect Weininger hit the nail on the head: man must submit the feminine in itself. This is what is called masculine.
Everything else is hyperbole, as in hyper-masculinity, or pretense, as in masculinization of women, or dysfunction, as in homosexuality.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Essentially, your philosophy is about escaping the confines of the mind- rationalism, idealism, inactivism, digitalism, binary logic, dichotomies, absolutes, abstractions, universals, these are all tools of the mind to understand that which is to an extent, foreign to it, alien to it, this thing or things which operate independently of it, outside of it's conception and will, and those who live in their heads in motionlessness and binary logic (those who mistake thinking for reality) are schizophrenic, religious retards and nut bags, disconnected and isolated from reality, men like Spinoza and Parmenides, simpletons, they simplify everything when reality and perception is always far more complex and mysterious than the mind can conceive of, and since the mind is this ordering organism, wanting stability so as to understand things, wanting to slow them down, and also preserve themselves in the becoming, the mind has this tendency to partially resist this fact of phenomena, including the withering away of the self, and live in these isolated castles, these ivory towers, mental constructs, like a fairy tale princess, leaving the world behind, like the Buddha, before he took a trip to the real world and awoke to reality, where things decay, are imperfect.

Yes, I consider this type of thinking slavish.
Parmenidies dominates western civilization, if you can call ti western.
Via the Jews and how they infected the western mind we are living in what is called "Modernity". It is a slave psychology made universal with its assimilation of Platonic thought or the elements in Hellenism which suited its transformation from an exclusionary spirituality to a cosmopolitan one.

Heisman (suicide Note) is of the mind that this is a Jewish ploy...for how else can a weaker clan subdue a stronger one than by convincing it that slavishness is greatness and that all that it depends on to survive is really sinful and something which it must be ashamed of?
He claims that there's an inherit contradiction in Jewish psychology...and this goes back to Trivers and the quote about deception.
The Jew has bought into his own lie so as to be more convincing but in so doing he must contradict himself with deeds, saying one thing and acting in opposition to it if he is to survive his own nihilism.

I went into some of this in Narcissism and Schizophrenia.
You witness this everyday...people saying one thing and doing something which contradicts it.
You know, like Christians going to Church on Sunday to absolve themselves of all the sins they committed or will commit during the week.

I gave this example to some stupid New age bitch that once frequented ILP, but also to Krswest and Anita S.

On the one hand they talk about how sex is beautiful and not aggressive, with no symbolic dominance and submissive roles; they speak about how all deserve love; they speak about how appearances do not matter, how it is on the "inside" where the beauty of man resides...but then cry out in frustration when you challenge them to live up to these words.
Why do they not give a blowjob to a bum? Why are they so hurt by rape? Why is the tall dark and handsome man more funny or more chemically in tune with them?
If all they believed they practiced they should be having sex with any man who needs it.

You also see it on forums and how they are administrated. They say one thing but then, somehow, selectively choose to turn a blind eye, or to then notice an infraction, finding ways to justify why this person has to be reprimanded while the other cast out as a Troll.

Quote :

remember need is a symptom of weakness or imperfection.

Yes, with this I agree with you on.

When I ask- does nothing remain, it is a rhetorical question, of course I know some things remain.

Atomists once thought particles did not change.. but they were wrong. Perhaps one day we will find a true atom, but until then, let us look elsewhere.

So what is unchanging, I was not demanding anything from you, merely requesting. Let me ask you this, of course things, objects, chunks of matter seem to change, whether we are speaking of macro, middle or micro matter (of course there is no real fine line between them, or no real line whatsoever), but does space itself change? Now according to Einstein, space bends.. but fuck him, I don't understand him, I haven't done my homework on him, as far as I can tell space does not change, although the matter within does.

For instance, space has three dimensions, but does it ever add a dimension, or subtract one, the answer is no. So reality consists of 3 dimensional space not change in it's dimensions. Does it change in any other way? Not that I can percieve, there is no spatial wall that appears between me and another object, separating us, so it is always possible to move from one space to another without interference from space itself, though an object may interfere with you.

Time doesn't change in it's dimensions either, it has only one, as far as we can tell. Oh, I forgot, you don't use the word change, you use activity, they're practically synonyms, but either way, space and time themselves are inactive, motionless.

All matter is in motion, yes, but what is it moving towards? The laws of interactivity (fire, gravity, repulsion) exist in proportion to each other in such a way, that the same objects keep popping up out of the metaphysical time fog, seemingly over and over again, so nothing truly new ever happens, making time and space a bit illusory. Things more/less keep repeating themselves across time and space according to the fixed laws of interactivity, producing the more/less the same objects again and again, and while these laws themselves may change, they seem static so far.

Perhaps I've created a straw man by replacing your word activity with change, ha ha, excuse me, I'm searching for an error here, but you're very cautious, maybe activity can't be grammatically applied to space, time and natural laws themselves.

eyesinthedark wrote:

So what is unchanging, I was not demanding anything from you, merely requesting. Let me ask you this, of course things, objects, chunks of matter seem to change, whether we are speaking of macro, middle or micro matter (of course there is no real fine line between them, or no real line whatsoever), but does space itself change?

Space is not as thing.
I will draw from Heidegger and say that space is a projection of possibilities.
If time is a measurement of change then space is the projected possibilities of said measurement.

This is why space is infinitely divisible. the more we perceive the more possibilities expand, increase exponentially...until our mind can no longer process the information and it interprets it as black or void...chaos.

The mind takes it for granted as the only way it can create its abstractions. It is a method, inherited through trial and error and made into an a priori concept.
binary logic requires two static reference points. We usually know them as evil/good, thing/nothing, God/Satan, up/down, here/there 1/0...etc.

This is the mental grid within which the sensual input is simplified and combined ino0t mental models. Within this space/time grid is where the abstraction which is then projected takes form, acquires color, texture, and so on.
Now, keep in mind, that these abstractions are not totally without merit. They have managed to prove themselves effective, even if simple, and useful to us or to life in general.
In fact the quality of the simplification/generalization increases the effectiveness of the organism...this is why I laugh any time some retard accuses me of over-simplification.
The mind must simplify complexity by finding more general patterns of predictability in the increasing chaos.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Now according to Einstein, space bends.. but fuck him, I don't understand him, I haven't done my homework on him, as far as I can tell space does not change, although the matter within does

But all possibilities are adjusted to change.
Light is the extreme point of human perception...the horizon in man's perceptual event horizon.

eyesinthedark wrote:

For instance, space has three dimensions, but does it ever add a dimension, or subtract one, the answer is no. So reality consists of 3 dimensional space not change in it's dimensions. Does it change in any other way?

this is where it gets interesting.
Because consciousness, life in general, is a product of a (re)action to entropy, it can only stand in opposition to increasing chaos. It can only be an ordering in the disordering. But this does not mean that the Flux is not mulch-directional or that chaos is not also decreasing or going towards the multitude of possible (inter)actions.
Life can only experience the Flux as Flow...a Flow towards increasing unpredictability to chaos as we know it. To be conscious of decreasing chaos would be nonsensical..why would an ordering, like life and consciousness merge in opposition towards increasing order? What form would it take?
It would be a disordering in relation to it, and so life as experience passed on in the form of code would be unnecessary and absurd.

All other dimensions can be imagined a a mixture of this increasing and decreasing chaos...because we can only think in binaries.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Not that I can percieve, there is no spatial wall that appears between me and another object, separating us, so it is always possible to move from one space to another without interference from space itself, though an object may interfere with you.

This "object" is but a rate of flow which is different than you. Something is solid when it flows at a slower rate than you do; something is liquid or airy when it flows at a much faster rate. This difference in rates (inter)acts producing friction (pain, suffering)...resistance. A flow appropriates a possibility denying it to you. The slower it acts the longer it appropriates this possibility, blocking you from doing so.

eyesinthedark wrote:

All matter is in motion, yes, but what is it moving towards?

Nothing...Flux implies a multi-directional flow, an i(inter)activity with no final destination. It is only when an emergent unity, a congruence of flows, as I call it, has acquired the efficiency tool of Will, when it can project an object/objective, giving itself a direction towards.
All is (inter)acting but it is only a conscious mind which can project a final destination or an object/objective.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The laws of interactivity (fire, gravity, repulsion) exist in proportion to each other in such a way, that the same objects keep popping up out of the metaphysical time fog, seemingly over and over again, so nothing truly new ever happens, making time and space a bit illusory. Things more/less keep repeating themselves across time and space according to the fixed laws of interactivity, producing the more/less the same objects again and again, and while these laws themselves may change, they seem static so far.

Laws of nature are human conceptions which are trying to find patterns of consistency and repetition so as to produce understanding and aid the organism in its activities.

Laws of Nature are general laws governing (inter)actions in the present state of the universe. This does not make them absolutes nor eternal.

If all is tending towards chaos, in relation to human life, then all (inter)actions are changing even in how they relate.

I would say the recent discovery that the galaxies are speeding away from each other points to an increase in disorder, as order is a resistance. As chaos increases order, as a resistance, decreases, speeding up the towards chaos.
But absolute disorder will never bee attained for this would entail an absolute - of the negative sort.
Just as the Big bang represents an ongoing process, not a singular event, which reached the near-absolute without attaining it...for to reach the absolute infinite energy would be demanded and this would have to presuppose an absolute...as in absolute chaos.
So you see the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same metaphor.

To finalize the approach towards the singular, the absolute singularity, the one, infinite energy would be required...but to have infinite energy infinite activity in implies, as energy and activity describe the same concept. But then all would have to be absolutely unpredictable and random as anything which disturbed or inhibited action, such as any form of order, would have to be absent.
Ergo the Big Bang represents a metaphorical focal point where the absolute chaos and order is approached but never finalized...it is forever ongoing giving rise, over and over again to conditions and raising possibilities.

Quote :

Satyr wrote: All words are references, symbols, to a mental model, an abstraction.
They are codified, and so are static symbols.

The challenge is to transcend the limitation imposed upon the mind by the medium and the tool, in this case the brain which can only conceptualize with static models and use binary logic.
Language is an art form, and like all art forms it attempt's to represent the real by idealizing it or by indirectly alluding to what it cannot define directly or completely...also given that absolute awareness and conceptualization is impossible, due to the absence of absolutes.
A painter does something similar when in his paintings he tries to give the impression of movement, or of our dimensional reality, by using colors, shades or a flat board.
There are certain words which best capture the dynamism of the object by using a static form, like a word. They do so by evoking in the mind an experience, like that of movement, by using an inert medium.
Sometimes just the enunciation of the word or how the sound reverberates on the palate and within the sinus cavity gives off the impression.
"Vibration" is a good word.

I use "activity" because ti best combines with the prefixes of "re" and "inter" to express what I am trying to express.

This is why I say that much of this is counter-intuitive and that as someone said a philosopher must be part scientist and part artist.
As you can see for yourself these internet forums are mostly populated by the non-artistic, bland, numbers and geometries, types.

I tend to think of it this way- the left brain utilizes one dimensional, binary logic to make sense of the world. It is the part of the brain most most adept at and responsive to language, logic and mathematics, technical and ordinary language especially, prose and poetry to a lesser extent. Here is where the right brain is activated to a degree, as prose and poetry are more directly connected with images and sounds, language rich in rhythm, metaphor, simile and personification- the feminine, illogical side of language. The left brain thinks one dimensionally (black/white) where as the right thinks three dimensionally in images and sounds, using them to symbolize internal ( thoughts, feelings) and external states. A picture of a river could symbolize a general concept such as flux or flow, and mountain stasis or stability. Combining a picture of a mountain together with one of a river could symbolize stasis or stability in spite of rapid change.

The right brain is more adept at art and music than logic and math, though there is a more left brain side of these fields as well, like architecture. Neither brain is stupid, man and women require both to successfully navigate this treacherous and perilous world. Organisms are highly organized in their material and metaphysical composition and constitution, relatively speaking. Organisms desire to maintain their respective order in the general disordering of things. However, Humankind, particularly mankind is the embodiment and pinnacle of order, relatively speaking, I think we are probably the most orderly organism to have crawled, slithered or walked across the earth.

The left brain is the more advanced of the two. Men tend to possess a more intelligent left brain and women a more intelligent right brain. As man 'progresses' from a state of barbarism and primitivism to one of civilization, he increasingly has to utilize his left brain more and more. His world is becoming one of less tastes, smells, sights and sounds, and one of more abstractions, requiring more and more specialization and technical prowess. If anything, modern man ought to flourish in such an environment, contrary to your thesis (fem of man). However, as you also point out, women are more adept at socializing and conformity. Here they have the advantage.

Yes, studies have shown primitive man is and had to be more right brain oriented.

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were literary philosophers, as philosophy can be both one dimensional and left brained and three dimensional and right brained, though since it relies on language and logic so heavily, overall it is probably more of a right brained pursuit. Empiricism and realism are also more connected with the right brain than their antonyms, although some empiricists and realists, like Russell, can be quite left brained, so I guess there is some overlap.

Quote :

We see in modern science a return to metaphysics or to artistry, in the area of quantum physics where the counter-intuitive is approached.
Take String Theory. It uses the metaphor of a string which is vibrating, oscillating.
Now, you might ask, what is left once the vibration is ceased? I will tell you that nothing is left...literally. To make of this metaphor into a thing, in this case a static string, is to do away with the concept that matters: vibration.
The string is the abstraction through which the concept of activity, as in vibration, makes sense or the only way that it can be conceptualized.
I will say that there is no string at all, but only vibration, only energy which is conceptualized as a string to make it comprehensible.

Right, energy, time and space aren't objects, chunks of matter, energy, like vibration is a process matter goes through, it is matter in motion, matter interacting with other matter in different ways. When matter is attracting, we call it gravity, when matter is repelling, we call it repelling or repulsion, fire or heat is.. I'm not sure.. a mixture.. microrepulsion.. but I know it is not a particle, as Hume indicated. I hope we see a slightly more Dionysian approach to philosophy and science. Man should be balanced, somewhere in the middle between the two, perhaps we've drifted too far towards one in some respects, and the other in other respects.

Hmmm, if Apollo and Dionysus, or left/right think differently, one in logic, the other in dreams, do they also feel differently, do they have different emotions, different appetites? For example, is Apollo more of a stimulant man, and Dionysus a depressant man, or vice versa? See you could never have this discussion with your average ILPer, I am able to play around with ideas, I'm not a strict literalist, though I can be when I want to be. Perhaps I am getting a bit ahead of myself, here though. I always wondered if the right brain experiences emotions differently. I read the right is more emotional and more prone to negative emotions.

Do you care for my association of the brains with the Gods?

Quote :

But all possibilities are adjusted to change.
Light is the extreme point of human perception...the horizon in man's perceptual event horizon.

Yes, and who knows what exists beyond that horizon.. God, the tooth fairy, Elvis? My best guess would be more of the same, just moving, vibrating faster, slower, but I could be wrong, I do not take eternal recurrence as an absolute, just an empirical tendency.
Perhaps we can bounce light particles off of these mysterious particles to get a clue. I guess they're already doing that, that's what infrared and ultraviolet is, right?
I guess the universe would get pretty fucking boring if it kept repeating itself, but that is just the Dionysian in me. Did you know big bang theory was originally proposed by a catholic priest? My guess is that you knew that already.

Look at how similar atoms are to solar systems. I'm not saying they're the same, but similar, in many respects. I find this odd, don't you? Perhaps the big bang (if it indeed exists and man can really see that far back in time) (this negative, Dionysian push towards chaos, nothingness, sparsity and oblivion, an equally disturbing universe, as neither would permit life as we know it, or do you think life would be more plentiful in a Apollonian universe? I think life is made possible by the universe being somewhere in the middle between a cold, sparse disorderly plurality and a hot, dense, orderly monality, however it is not a mathematically, objectively perfect middle, at least I don't think, as you pointed out, just a middle more suited for growing life), is merely the explosion of a macroparticle, or a macrocompound, that once had a nucleus or several nuclei the size of a billion black holes. If so, there's probably other megaparticles out there, but the space between them is incomprehensible. Perhaps, since I think it is more likely life comes from life, and not from a far lesser order, like soup, a few lifeforms will find a way to travel from one exploding megaparticle to another stable one or half stable, via ejaculated planets or spacecraft, to fertilize a new megaparticle with life. Of course I'm just fantasizing/theorizing, based on my cyclical interactivity hypothesis (a never ending twirl between Apollonian and Dionysian extremities, life thriving somewhere in the middle, moving from one Goldilocks zone to another, neither increasing nor decreasing in numbers, much). All in all, our conceptions of the universe are fairly similar, just you've done away with the eternal recurrence notion where as I've made it central to my philosophy, you believe in more linear activity. However, I am not an absolutist, I am willing to change my theory when I've received contradicting data/understanding. There is this connection between the Heraclitean worldview and cyclical time, neh?

Quote :

this is where it gets interesting.
Because consciousness, life in general, is a product of a (re)action to entropy, it can only stand in opposition to increasing chaos. It can only be an ordering in the disordering. But this does not mean that the Flux is not mulch-directional or that chaos is not also decreasing or going towards the multitude of possible (inter)actions.
Life can only experience the Flux as Flow...a Flow towards increasing unpredictability to chaos as we know it. To be conscious of decreasing chaos would be nonsensical..why would an ordering, like life and consciousness merge in opposition towards increasing order? What form would it take?
It would be a disordering in relation to it, and so life as experience passed on in the form of code would be unnecessary and absurd.

All other dimensions can be imagined a a mixture of this increasing and decreasing chaos...because we can only think in binaries.

Yes, but chaos needn't be ubiquitous, just increasing in our domain, but then the greater the chaos, the greater the lifeform, so white people must have had to endure a lot to make it this far, and now we have been unleashed upon this unforgiving world, we have sought revenge, raping everything our path, so it is up to the Jew to slow us down, as only he can, but then the Jew, our former slave, we have also made into a superorganism, so perhaps he is this God race within a God race, coming to put an end to us- we are like batman and he is the joker.

In many ways, it is harmony order and regularity that have allowed life to prosper. Well, I suppose it is a combination of the two, if things were perfect, then there would be no need for need thus activity, as every need would automatically be satiated, requiring little or no effort, thus life would atrophy, so that it would be so weak it could not even sustain itself inside a relative paradise, so it this balance between easiness, order, warmth, light, wet.. and hardness, disorder, cold/hot, dry that gives rise to life, which is able to satisfy it's basic needs but not easily. Too hard and it dies, too easy and it atrophies, the key is this middle ground, this immoderate moderation, or moderate immoderation which best supports life. The problem with white people is this great swing, first, we had it too hard (ice age), now, we have it too easy (modernity). Eventually we'll atrophy and our enemies who we've been raping for centuries (primarily the Jews) may catch up with us, though evolution takes a long time, and these things could take years to play themselves out (perhaps you overestimate how long it takes biological atrophy to kick in, it could take Millenia, if our species learns to appreciate the gifts our forebears have given us and use them wise, perhaps we do not need this new world order culling).

This ice age molded us into the creatures we are, but now that our environment has warmed, we have taken full advantage of these plentiful times, we are this superorganism devouring everything in sight. If we don't learn to control ourselves and of the detriments of our technological prowess in addition to the apparent benefits, perhaps it is good something comes along and devours some of us, since we're devouring everything and in the process, annihilating ourselves, or maybe we'll find a way to correct things and make civilization more sustainable, or colonize other planets as this one may be dying, I'm not sure. Too many variables for me to process right now.

Quote :

The brain is a tool which has to order reality by freezing it into a static snapshot.
Ordering is a return to a simpler period....take the Big Bang...it defines a state where the universe was at its simplest.
It manufactures the noumenon as a model of the phenomenon.

This also relates back to feminization as the male attitude is the one resisting disorder, wanting to create order....to create the perfect, the inert, the immutable the godly.
The masculine attitude is what separates, distinguishes, and rejects and challenges the given...in the balance of dualism it represents the self which seeks to stand apart from the other.
A better way to understand it is by using Kazantzakis' metaphor of a God struggling to emerge or to create Himself out of the chaos.
This is the masculine energy of spirit....and spirit stands apart, above the physical, the earthy, the feminine.

In their own way, all creatures wish to maintain their order contra the chaos consuming and engulfing it, not just white males, I think it is a case of one resisting more, or in a different way, in a more cerebral way (male), in a more left brain, neo cortex way. This seems to be a, at least in short term, a more effective way of maintaining one's self. I'm not sure in the long run.
I think life is made possible by this balance between the big positive something and the big negative nothing or sparsity, I'm not sure life could exist in this idealize past just before/after the big bang. Empedocles said it could only exist in the spring and fall of our universe, not in summer (something) and winter (nothing). I tend to agree with Empedocles. Nonetheless, like your typical idealist reject, he worshiped the big something, even though he recognized it would mean the death of life. Instead he should have worshiped cosmological spring and fall. I don't think the universe is progressing towards a more perfect spring/fall like state, it seems to be moving towards winter, just as Empedocles theorized, but I suspect there are parts of it moving in the opposite direction, or that at some point we may reverse course, but you think we are eternally moving towards winter, forever and ever, making you a pessimist, and making me neither a cosmological pessimist or optimist.

Quote :

Yes, it is mystical.
This is what is missing from modern civilization: quality.
Modernism reduces all to quantity...it claims that all is knowable and it resorts to absurdity to make it seem like this is so.

Yes, because mathematics and abstractions are more quantitative, right, where as experiences, feelings/sensations are more qualitative? You seek for a reunion with nature, with the feminine, you think man has drifted too far apart from the world, and is lost, removed from his roots, you see this civilization of constant change and uprooting of things, traditions, as a negative. You think order is good, but not an order that isolates one so thoroughly from the natural, this could encourage schizophrenia, imbalance, atrophy, decadence, hedonism, materialism, so you are in opposition to modernity. Live lightly you say. Of course, what we're doing now is pretty heavy, do we really need to think so much? All this knowledge, where does it lead us in the end, all these digital conversations, is this not a symptom of modernity, are we not missing out on human contact to some degree? I take a mixed attitude towards modernity, there have been times when I've been for it, and times against it. I'm not inherently anti modernity, but I am more weary than some.

Quote :

This is what Traditionalists like Yockey, Evola, and Guenon, as well as Nietzsche to some extent were talking about with Apollo versus Dionysus or Alexandrian civilization or their anti-rational stances.

But not all spiritualism is created equal nor do all spiritual dogmas lead to an ascent of man.

Well, perhaps I still do not fully understand you yet. I think some of these philosophers got their idea of a previous more orderly civilization and universe from mythology, like the idea of Atlantis and Gold, Silver and Bronze age, and the age of heroes, and the garden of Eden, the tower of babel. You are for civilization, for order, for the masculine, but you think we have gone far in schizophrenically distancing ourselves from nature, with emotion, art, organic life, so you seek a balance of some kind, or perhaps a civilization equally as advanced as our own, but a different kind civilization, one more in touch with nature, I still don't quite get it, I wish you'd explain your ideal society in detail for us.

Quote :

This is why not all can accomplish this....the previously mentioned scientist/artist balance must be present. But I can put it another way: there must be a perfect masculine/feminine balance where the masculine has overpowered the feminine within the self; has not silenced it pr denied it but has harnessed it.
In effect Weininger hit the nail on the head: man must submit the feminine in itself. This is what is called masculine.
Everything else is hyperbole, as in hyper-masculinity, or pretense, as in masculinization of women, or dysfunction, as in homosexuality.

Well, I think you may have accomplished this, as your writing style is superb, full of artistry, and your logic is impeccable. You're the only person on these forums I could read for hours on end and not get bored. Every line is a delight.

Quote :

Yes, I consider this type of thinking slavish.
Parmenidies dominates western civilization, if you can call ti western.
Via the Jews and how they infected the western mind we are living in what is called "Modernity". It is a slave psychology made universal with its assimilation of Platonic thought or the elements in Hellenism which suited its transformation from an exclusionary spirituality to a cosmopolitan one.

So civilization is good (civilization is a product of the masculine, is it not?), the trouble is this quantitative civilization, this universal communist brotherhood, which is, Dionysian, in it's origin, since females desire to become one, but then I thought it was the metaphysical female that moves towards sparsity and nothingness, the big freeze??? Those philosophers who were democrats and socialists, like Antiphon, Parmenides and Empedocles, and vegetarians, often worshiped the big something, the big crunch, where as the worshipers of nihilism, sparsity, seemed more aligned with oligarchy, masculinity and conflict, so this is all very confusing here. Perhaps it is a combination here, the female is more inclusive in who she loves, the male exclusive, but the male is a more orderly creature, the female disorderly. Then, in a sense, the big crunch represents feminine masculinity, and the big bang masculine femininity.. you see the source of my confusion here?

Quote :

Heisman (suicide Note) is of the mind that this is a Jewish ploy...for how else can a weaker clan subdue a stronger one than by convincing it that slavishness is greatness and that all that it depends on to survive is really sinful and something which it must be ashamed of?
He claims that there's an inherit contradiction in Jewish psychology...and this goes back to Trivers and the quote about deception.
The Jew has bought into his own lie so as to be more convincing but in so doing he must contradict himself with deeds, saying one thing and acting in opposition to it if he is to survive his own nihilism.

Yes, I've understood this about the Jew a long time ago, we see it in the way he blows the holocaust out of proportion and demand we feel sorry about it, and goes about spreading liberalism and communism everywhere, meanwhile he finances it all with capital and banks, and practices fascism and masculinity in his homeland, I think this may be a Jewish plot, to hyper feminize us and nigger our blood, so we'll be like animals, easier to control, and this is how the Jew subverts our culture, through promoting radical feminine religions like Christianity (although Christianity is very otherworldly, a masculine quality, and worships a male, authoritarian God, but the God is very forgiving, which feminizes him) and ultra feminine philosophies like Marxism, so as to bring us down to their level. This is their strength, not necessarily intelligence, although they are very intelligent, but more importantly, subversion, corruption, turning us into animals or into slaves. Their God promised them he'd make them the head and us goy the tail.

Quote :

I went into some of this in Narcissism and Schizophrenia.
You witness this everyday...people saying one thing and doing something which contradicts it.
You know, like Christians going to Church on Sunday to absolve themselves of all the sins they committed or will commit during the week.

Right, but the true Christian from my understand, this wouldn't be a contradiction for him, as they believe it is impossible to gain mastery over the feminine, over the flesh, even thought he spirit is willing, man's appetites can never be subdued, and herein lies the need for salvation, for mercy from a supposedly loving God. The true Christian believes in salvation through 'faith alone', not works, for man is doomed, there is little or no good him. Only God is good, apparently, they teach we're to place our hope and faith in him and him alone, not in others and not in ourselves.
Anyway, I'm digressing, I see the hypocrisy in man, and especially in Jews.

Quote :

I gave this example to some stupid New age bitch that once frequented ILP, but also to Krswest and Anita S.

On the one hand they talk about how sex is beautiful and not aggressive, with no symbolic dominance and submissive roles; they speak about how all deserve love; they speak about how appearances do not matter, how it is on the "inside" where the beauty of man resides...but then cry out in frustration when you challenge them to live up to these words.
Why do they not give a blowjob to a bum? Why are they so hurt by rape? Why is the tall dark and handsome man more funny or more chemically in tune with them?
If all they believed they practiced they should be having sex with any man who needs it.

Yes, it is just some bullshit they tell themselves, to pretend like they are their soul, that all souls are one, they're confused, and stunted. Of course these religions are bullshit, and our instincts reject them, even if our minds are confused enough to believe in them, but nonetheless they can be used to partially, not fully, but partially sway others into being submissive, loving, etc, but people will believe a big lie rather than a little, so Dictators and Jews need these powerful lies (we're all one, God loves us all equally, etc) to produce modest results, a modest lie would produce no results, and the sheep would not be pacified and become docile enough desist resisting the sheep dogs.

Quote :

You also see it on forums and how they are administrated. They say one thing but then, somehow, selectively choose to turn a blind eye, or to then notice an infraction, finding ways to justify why this person has to be reprimanded while the other cast out as a Troll.

I have not had this experience too often, but I saw what they did to your essay and that proves they are cowards and hypocrites.

---

Well one thing I'm still puzzle about, is the problem with civilization the quantity of it, in that there is too much of it, the quality, in that it is too feminine, or feminine and masculine in the wrongs ways, or a combination of the two?

Plato's society was hypermasculine in that it was small, exclusive, oligarchic, based on reason, philosophy, not emotion, art, based on abstractions and a partial schizophrenic detaching from reality, on rationalism, idealism, order, hierarchy, spirit, infanticide, eugenic, authority. For you, this is a problem, for it has not utilized them feminine, it has neglected it, denied it. The reverse would be a big, inclusive, democratic, emotional, artistic, libertarian society, something like our society, I guess. You seek a qualitative balance, correct? But you're more on Plato's side, overall.

Yes, it's funny how others accuse you of simplicity, but it is not simplicity they're really against, just your supposed simplicity. In reality you are more complex than them, as you constantly make adjustments to your theories upon acquiring more data, and even though you provide us with many rules, they are never in the absolute form, and you always leave room for exceptions, sometimes more than others as need be, depending on the subject. This notion that all individuals and races, sexes and animals are equally valuable and similar or even the same in every way, is just as simplistic as the idea that white, adult males are God, and all others are animals, if not more simplistic, but you do not adopt either stance, though you are a little more to the right (relative to the norm), it is only because the date points in that direction, and you do not stray very far from the data, so these morons like d63 think you're some kind of neo Nazi skin head, and to be honest, at one time that's what I thought you may be, but I didn't settle for that, I could see there was more there, and now I see your philosophy is far more sophisticated and nuanced than I ever could have imagined, it defies all quick and easy labels. I have tried to place you into a box many times, and failed, but I have no agenda here, I simply want to understand who you are, what you believe and why, because I find it all fascinating, I shall challenge you whenever I think you are far off, as I have previously, I will stay true to my own conception of reality no matter what, but I will incorporate what I see as the best elements of your philosophy into my own, and leave the rest, as a good thinker learns from others without mimicking them, as you have done with Schopenhauer and others. I have no affiliation with any party, I do not consider myself left or right, I am simply on the side of truth, and cast all the politics and all the popularity contests and bullshit aside, and go straight for the jugular, for the meat and potatoes and that is what your philosophy provides me with, no bullshit, an honest overview of the world, one man's extraordinary perspective, no religion, no fairytale endings, just an honest look at the bloody world, no pretenses, it is all the other motherfuckers who never gave you a chance who have had the pretenses and the baggages of crap. Even when they challenge you, it's never about philosophy, they never do it honestly, it's always personal, or petty, or emotional, or reactionary, well, not always, but often, certainly in the case of d63.

Satyr wrote:

In fact consciousness is the constant juxtaposition of abstractions - mental snapshots - in quick succession, creating the perception of movement.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

It sounds like how a camera works, rather than consciousness which is more analog and seamless.