All things have more/less equal value

apatheist wrote:

So far.. I haven't seen much philosophizing going on here.. I'm a little disappointed.

Maybe philosophy is more about letting things happen and dealing with what comes out.

Maybe if one wishes for a particular kind of philosophy or wishes to inject more abstract reasoning one must start with one's self.

apatheist wrote:

The lie is that there are some things and behaviours that are wholly or nearly wholly good/this and some that are wholly or nearly wholly bad/that. Reality is a mix of opposites, of yin and yang, ever cycling. This lie takes many forms: from the Catholic advocating certain behaviours over others: faith, hope and love contra reason, fear and hate, to Dionysian advocating sex, wine and ritual dance.

Opposites are how the mind makes sense of reality, and they have no meaning outside of it.

Binary logic is how the human mind positions itself within a fluid world.

apatheist wrote:

Although I prefer reason to faith, faith has it's pluses too, both intrinsically and extrinsically. Reason entails a sense proudful knowing, faith entails a sense of humble knowing.

No, the difference is again binary.
One begins from the bottom and proceeds upward.....it assumes ignorance, in the absolute sense, and then seeks absolute knowledge.
The other, faith, begins with the sense of absolute knowledge and then proceeds backwards trying to justify it. This is a top down method.

apatheist wrote:

Is one inherently better than another? ? I prefer relying on the self, for knowing. There is something profoundly servile, weak and.. effeminate about faith, something I've always despised, but then again, I've always thought of myself as rather intelligent, where as those who think of themselves as rather average, or inferior in that department, may find comfort in conformity.

The top>Down method is more comforting because it starts with a certainty, an authority, a truth, and so it is attractive to the more feminine mind.
The bottom>up is fraught with anxiety and uncertainty, and is only attractive to the one seeking self-reliance.

apatheist wrote:

You see, what works for one person, at one time and place, may not work for another, at another time and place. 'Tis why nature equipped us with opposing sets of character traits: right and left, male and female, reason and faith, hope and fear, dominance and submission, courage and cowardice, pride and humility, or pride and admiration, love and callous disregard, or love and hate. Hmmm, so many ways to group these, but is there a difference between the concepts on the left and the concepts on the right, curious?

Yes, and it relates to the left/right in politics.

The right focuses on the past, to inform the future. It's nihilistic absolute is the something....God.
The left focuses on the future, the yet to be, and so is free from all the past. It has no reference point which makes its imagination leap to and fro, but it also makes it vulnerable to the world which it is detached from. It's nihilistic end is the void, the emptiness, the nothingness.

The balance is one of Hellenic origins, the Dionysian/Apollonian tendencies, using Nietzschean references.
Here the feminine is not denied, and so nature is not denied, but it is controlled, as much as this is possible. Of course absolute order, control, is a myth and so one must come to terms with a degree of it.
Existence happens in the so called middle; an oscillation between or towards one and the other extreme. Or this is how man can conceptualize it.

apatheist wrote:

You see, our peculiar society has sold us a peculiar lie, it has taught us that dilligence is better than sloth (work hard), it has taught us hedonism is better than asceticism (play hard). It has taught us the presence or maximization of technological innovation, producerism, consumerism and materialism is eternally preferable to the absence or minimization of technological innovation, etc. The truth is: one can get along just fine with little soap, without computer, without television, without car, without house.

Perhaps you can wait for the completion of my thesis The Feminization of Mankind to fill you in on my positions on this.
In short, the feminine is gaining dominance within human contexts, because it is more controllable and impressionable and submissive.
This means that the nihilistic tendency toward the absolute void or the "progressive" leap towards the eradication of all distinctions rooted in the past, particularly the genetic natural past, is in ascendency.

Here you must overcome your indoctrination into the belief that liberalism, the feminine, is progressive and conservatism, the masculine, is what its name labels it.
In a universe tending naturally towards increasing entropy, disorder, those advocating order, as a resistance, are the real progressives...and those advocating disorder, or the elimination of all types that resit disorder, are the ones defending the status quo.
Orwellian methods have been used to twist concepts.

Now the slave is the master and the master is the slave; ego is an insult and pride a sin.
In fact anything associate with the past, the more ordered past - if entropy is increasing then logically what lies in the past was in a state of more order.
Change happens naturally, it does not require any effort. It is those who wish to arrest change who are the true revolutionaries.

Now...the so called progressives are merely those who wish to eliminate all resistance to the status quo, of increasing disordering, thinking that quickening the path towards the absolute void will save them from the suffering resisting it entails. Their ideology is essentially life'-denouncing.

Of course the opposite trend, towards absolute order, is also a movement towards the null, as it proposes an absolute state of being, Godliness, which would eliminate all distinctions and all necessity for multiplicity and consciousness.
The overman, so to speak, is the one who has overcome his resentment of the impossibility or undesirability of both options, realizing that life occurs in the interaction of the two, neither ever completing itself.

Quote :

That's what I was trying to go with picking the avatar.

Cool, I like gumbo, wolverine, cyclops, and all the characters from x-men. I like how distinct all their personalities were, and how they sometimes conflicted.

Quote :

Let's just say I'm a aspiring thief, criminal, hustler, con artist, scammer, and frauder.

Once I get out of this being homeless bit that's what I plan on mastering.

I'm done playing by society's bullshit rules. I seek to undermine society for the years of bullshit it has put me through.

Anymore I'm becoming a modern day pirate or criminal opportunist.

Of course I work alone only. It's better that way. There's only one person I truely trust.

Yeah, I've done a little of that, wound up in jail a couple of times, felt like a bit of a fool, but then, I'm adverse to hard work too, I cherish my leisure time. My advice is: low risk, low reward, and try to be as nonviolent as possible, that way, if you do get caught, you won't wind up in jail for a long period of time. Yeah, why play by their rules, their rules only serve them, that's why the rich get richer, and.. I'm working on a new set of rules I call: Possessionism. Rules I think would serve the underclass and the workingclass more. I think we went over it a little on one of your threads on iLP. I'll have to weave a new thread devouted specifically to my ideas on property, sometime.

apatheist wrote:

Quote :

That's what I was trying to go with picking the avatar.

Cool, I like gumbo, wolverine, cyclops, and all the characters from x-men. I like how distinct all their personalities were, and how they sometimes conflicted.

Quote :

Let's just say I'm a aspiring thief, criminal, hustler, con artist, scammer, and frauder.

Once I get out of this being homeless bit that's what I plan on mastering.

I'm done playing by society's bullshit rules. I seek to undermine society for the years of bullshit it has put me through.

Anymore I'm becoming a modern day pirate or criminal opportunist.

Of course I work alone only. It's better that way. There's only one person I truely trust.

Yeah, I've done a little of that, wound up in jail a couple of times, felt like a bit of a fool, but then, I'm adverse to hard work too, I cherish my leisure time. My advice is: low risk, low reward, and try to be as nonviolent as possible, that way, if you do get caught, you won't wind up in jail for a long period of time. Yeah, why play by their rules, their rules only serve them, that's why the rich get richer, and.. I'm working on a new set of rules I call: Possessionism. Rules I think would serve the underclass and the workingclass more. I think we went over it a little on one of your threads on iLP. I'll have to weave a new thread devouted specifically to my ideas on property, sometime.

Quote :

Cool, I like gumbo, wolverine, cyclops, and all the characters from x-men. I like how distinct all their personalities were, and how they sometimes conflicted.

I like gambit too. Personally one of my favorite characters.

Other fiction I like also is Batman, Superman, and Conan the barbarian.

I tend to like alot of the supervillains because all the heroes tend to be so fake and boring.

I really like the Joker in Batman and when it concerns Superman in action comics I really like Lex Luthor.

Soon I really would like to see the Conan movie that came out recently.

Rose McGowan is so yummy.

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

Quote :

Yeah, I've done a little of that, wound up in jail a couple of times, felt like a bit of a fool

The name of the game is stealth like invisibility and don't get caught.

You also need to have all the basic knowledge and abilities of those pursuing you so that way you know how to evade or avoid detection.

Quote :

but then, I'm adverse to hard work too, I cherish my leisure time.

Criminality anymore is alot of hard work if you wish to be successful at it in this modern technological era.

Anything that is rewarding is hard and difficult.

Quote :

My advice is: low risk, low reward, and try to be as nonviolent as possible,

Nods. This is why I'm starting out with small petty shenanigans.

Quote :

that way, if you do get caught, you won't wind up in jail for a long period of time.

Yup. Of course you have to be careful with those states that have the number three strikes law.

Three strikes get's you life without parole in some areas of the country.

Quote :

Yeah, why play by their rules, their rules only serve them, that's why the rich get richer, and..

Exactly. Fuck'em.

Quote :

I'm working on a new set of rules I call: Possessionism. Rules I think would serve the underclass and the workingclass more. I think we went over it a little on one of your threads on iLP. I'll have to weave a new thread devouted specifically to my ideas on property, sometime.

Cool.

Quote :

Maybe philosophy is more about letting things happen and dealing with what comes out.

Maybe if one wishes for a particular kind of philosophy or wishes to inject more abstract reasoning one must start with one's self.

Fair enough.

Quote :

Opposites are how the mind makes sense of reality, and they have no meaning outside of it.

Binary logic is how the human mind positions itself within a fluid world.

I disagree, I think opposites are a part of the mind, and a part of the universe.

Quote :

No, the difference is again binary.
One begins from the bottom and proceeds upward.....it assumes ignorance, in the absolute sense, and then seeks absolute knowledge.
The other, faith, begins with the sense of absolute knowledge and then proceeds backwards trying to justify it. This is a top down method.

Reason doesn't assume anything, faith is opposed to reason. Reason begins by being honest with yourself, how much do I know, how much can I prove to myself. Faith assumes things, it doesn't necessarily seek to justify them with reason. In another sense, faith is another form of reason, a dependent form of reason, that seeks to justify itself based on popular or expert opinion, the Gods, or whatever.

Quote :

The top>Down method is more comforting because it starts with a certainty, an authority, a truth, and so it is attractive to the more feminine mind.
The bottom>up is fraught with anxiety and uncertainty, and is only attractive to the one seeking self-reliance.

The masculine, the intellectually and socially independent person, reasons and is independent minded. In truth, no one is completely independent/rational and no one is completely dependent/fideistic, we're all varying degrees of interdependent minded. Naturally, the upperclasses play the more masculine role, and the lowerclasses the more feminine role.. that is, the majority of the time.

Quote :

Yes, and it relates to the left/right in politics.

The right focuses on the past, to inform the future. It's nihilistic absolute is the something....God.
The left focuses on the future, the yet to be, and so is free from all the past. It has no reference point which makes its imagination leap to and fro, but it also makes it vulnerable to the world which it is detached from. It's nihilistic end is the void, the emptiness, the nothingness.

So somethingism vs nothingism, is what it all boils down to in the end. The male is at risk of moving too far toward nothingism (abstracting himself from the world), the female somethingism (losing herself in the world). The solar male represents the individual, the intuitive, the abstract, the idealist, the liberal, the radical, the dominator, freedom, progress, artifice, that which affects nature, and the lunar female represents the collective, the sensitive, the concrete, the realist, the conservative, the conventional, the submissive, determinism, regress, nature, that which is affected by nature. The female recieves from nature, from God, the male gives to nature, to God. The male: subject dominates object, or the inner dominates the outer, the female: object dominates subject, or the outer dominates the inner. What do you think of Jungian Archetypes? The male is intp, the female is esfj. For me, this correlates with what we're discussing.

Quote :

The balance is one of Hellenic origins, the Dionysian/Apollonian tendencies, using Nietzschean references.
Here the feminine is not denied, and so nature is not denied, but it is controlled, as much as this is possible. Of course absolute order, control, is a myth and so one must come to terms with a degree of it.
Existence happens in the so called middle; an oscillation between or towards one and the other extreme. Or this is how man can conceptualize it.

I don't think we should dominate her, submit to her, or conflict with her, both figuratively and literally, I think we should collaborate with her, collaborate with our.. other self.

You mention the Greeks.. what about the Jew, and the Arab? Do they move too far toward the female? What about the Hindu, and the Chinese? By worshiping matter, does our modern society move too far toward the female, also?

This has been very interesting for me. In some ways, you think very much like I do, it's like you're really trying to understand the whole of reality, and that's what I'm trying to do, I found most people on iLP were focused on the details, but never the big picture.

Quote :

Perhaps you can wait for the completion of my thesis The Feminization of Mankind to fill you in on my positions on this.
In short, the feminine is gaining dominance within human contexts, because it is more controllable and impressionable and submissive.
This means that the nihilistic tendency toward the absolute void or the "progressive" leap towards the eradication of all distinctions rooted in the past, particularly the genetic natural past, is in ascendency.

Is my thread a symptom of this supposed decay, then, since all things are grey to me, or a shade of grey? In Jungian archetypes, the female is closed minded, rigid, and stubborn, the male is the opposite. So, you're saying the female is at home with communism, socialism, mediocrity, sharing, caring, tolerance, acceptance.. but does the female not recognize hierarchy too, does she not subordinate herself to her man, to her family, to God, to authority? It seems the female and the male are both necessary for hierarchy, it's the lgbt community that seeks to undo hierarchy. The male is just as capable of erdicating hierarchy as the female, moreso even, is he not opposed to the.. natural order of things? Or do you think the female has more incentive, existing on the lower ranks, to do so. Wouldn't those who seek to abolish hierarchy, be more of a threat to the establishment than those who wish to perpetuate, maintain and uphold it?

Quote :

Here you must overcome your indoctrination into the belief that liberalism, the feminine, is progressive and conservatism, the masculine, is what its name labels it.
In a universe tending naturally towards increasing entropy, disorder, those advocating order, as a resistance, are the real progressives...and those advocating disorder, or the elimination of all types that resit disorder, are the ones defending the status quo.
Orwellian methods have been used to twist concepts.

Where did you get your concepts from, did you make them up whilst studying nature, or did you get them from studying Nietzsche? So order and liberalism go hand in hand, chaos and conservatism go hand in hand, and they want to feminize us, so they can conquer us, is that it? Ordo ab Chao?

apatheist wrote:

I disagree, I think opposites are a part of the mind, and a part of the universe.

No. Binary logic is a result of the mind juxtaposing itself against the world.

The universe becomes the entropy, and the self becomes the desire for order.
An order which is absent.

It is this juxtaposition, symbolized by the skin or the membrane which places a barrier around an organism, which creates this desire to separate, to distinguish one's self, to complete one's self...a Will to Power or a Will to Life.

apatheist wrote:

So somethingism vs nothingism, is what it all boils down to in the end. The male is at risk of moving too far toward nothingism (abstracting himself from the world), the female somethingism (losing herself in the world).

No. The masculine is the tendency towards somethingness. God is always male because he is the epitome of masculine order.
The feminine is a towards disorder, or an abandonment to the status quo, which is a constant increase in disorder. Ergo the priestesses of Dionysus are female.

In effect both the toward the something and the nothing are the movement towards the same absent absolute...making both nihilistic tendencies.
The lover of life is the one who finds the balance. He embraces his state of flux, by taking contort of his feminine side but never denying it.
The masculine is that which has dominated the female in himself, first, and then can dominate the female in the other.
Since the feminine is nature personified, this domination over the feminine is a domination over nature; sex, or the libido, being the strongest energy in the biological form.

apatheist wrote:

The solar male represents the individual, the intuitive, the abstract, the idealist, the liberal, the radical, the dominator, freedom, progress, artifice, that which affects nature, and the lunar female represents the collective, the sensitive, the concrete, the realist, the conservative, the conventional, the submissive, determinism, regress, nature, that which is affected by nature. The female recieves from nature, from God, the male gives to nature, to God. The male: subject dominates object, or the inner dominates the outer, the female: object dominates subject, or the outer dominates the inner.

God and nature are not tautologies, except in the sense that they both represent the same absence from different vantage points. The Big Bang viewed form its other side would be the Big Crunch.

God represents the ideal order.
Nature the status quo of increasing disorder.

apatheist wrote:

What do you think of Jungian Archetypes? The male is intp, the female is esfj. For me, this correlates with what we're discussing.

Yes.
His collective unconscious is something I am writing about right now, wihtin the context of the essay on The Feminization of Mankind.

It has to do with the nature of consciousness and how it is a looking back and a projection forward.
This looking back is the collective unconscious, as all human beings share a genetic past, to a degree. The archetypes are how this past manifests within each nidividual, in accordance to their particular genetics and organ weaknesses, sexual roles and so forth.

apatheist wrote:

I don't think we should dominate her, submit to her, or conflict with her, both figuratively and literally, I think we should collaborate with her, collaborate with our.. other self.

To be in control does not mean to kill or to deny.
When I control my horse I do not harm it. I direct it in accordance with its nature, as I understand it. It is my knowledge, understanding, which makes me dominate.
Although force is also an option.

apatheist wrote:

You mention the Greeks.. what about the Jew, and the Arab? Do they move too far toward the female? What about the Hindu, and the Chinese? By worshiping matter, does our modern society move too far toward the female, also?

Yes. The different varieties of monism are taken into account.

In fact all social unities demand an emasculation of the male, if the male is to be included.
The larger the unity the more emasculation occurs or is necessary to retain stability.

The eastern philosophies are far ahead than anything that came to be in the west. I suspect tit was because population pressures occurred there far before they began in the west.
Also in the west the Hellenic spirit, and the the Roman spirit, resisted this infection. But to the west it did come, via the Jews, who must have had contact with it through the Persians.

From Judaism sprung forth the duo of Islam and Christianity. Both variations of the same theme.

apatheist wrote:

This has been very interesting for me. In some ways, you think very much like I do, it's like you're really trying to understand the whole of reality, and that's what I'm trying to do, I found most people on iLP were focused on the details, but never the big picture.

Yeah...well you seem oddly familiar. Like you're an old acquaintance with a new mask.

My senses haven't failed me yet...so time will tell.

Doesn't matter, really.
People can't hide who they are for long. No mater how many names they use or how many garments they use, their nature always seeps through.

Quote :

Now the slave is the master and the master is the slave; ego is an insult and pride a sin.
In fact anything associate with the past, the more ordered past - if entropy is increasing then logically what lies in the past was in a state of more order.
Change happens naturally, it does not require any effort. It is those who wish to arrest change who are the true revolutionaries.

Right, the seasons change from one to the next, on the one hand, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Cycling of opposites is always the same, the star explodes, and new one is born, it's not as if a bumble bee is born from a dying star, or a helmet. Yes, man's order, in some ways, changes things, in some ways, it seeks to keep things as they are, in their peak, in their prime, like the eternal rising sun, youth, defy the will of the Gods, as opposed to primitive man, who let nature take it's course. Man, especially when he divorces himself from his feminine side, seeks to dominate nature, these are the real progressives, it seems the environmentalists then, the hippies, the drunkards, they want to dismantle order, not replace it with a new, superior order, but dismantle it, or at least that's what they tell us, perhaps they want to put a stop to our order, so they can establish their's.

Quote :

Now...the so called progressives are merely those who wish to eliminate all resistance to the status quo, of increasing disordering, thinking that quickening the path towards the absolute void will save them from the suffering resisting it entails. Their ideology is essentially life'-denouncing.

What do you think of the so called conservatives? What do you think of Ron Paul, what do you think of Mussolini, where do you stand politically?

Quote :

Of course the opposite trend, towards absolute order, is also a movement towards the null, as it proposes an absolute state of being, Godliness, which would eliminate all distinctions and all necessity for multiplicity and consciousness.
The overman, so to speak, is the one who has overcome his resentment of the impossibility or undesirability of both options, realizing that life occurs in the interaction of the two, neither ever completing itself.

So your philosophy is fundamentally Nietzschean?

apatheist wrote:

What do you think of the so called conservatives? What do you think of Ron Paul, what do you think of Mussolini, where do you stand politically?

All variations of the same masculine energy.

Evola is more appealing. He called himself a Traditionalist.

apatheist wrote:

So your philosophy is fundamentally Nietzschean?

I do not categorize myself using other men.

If anything you might call me a disciple of Heraclitus.
But I admire Schopenhauer no less, and Heidegger was more abstract, more masculine, in comparison to the more emotional and feminine Nietzsche.
But if understanding and controlling the feminine is the goal then in the artistry and fluidity of Nietzsche thought you can see it in practice.

I like to think of myself as a Genghis Kahn philosopher. Destroy everything and ask questions later after a successful conquest.

Quote :

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

TheJoker wrote:

Drugs stunt mental perceivement. I don't buy into that sort of arguement of yours all that much.

For the sake of being accurate, conjectures ought be made with caution when absence of experience has left them untested. Then again, perhaps there is no absence behind your comment.

Σατυρ wrote:

Heidegger was more abstract, more masculine, in comparison to the more emotional and feminine Nietzsche.

More abstract and less emotional perhaps, but also captivated by a political dictator.

ReluctantPacifist wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Drugs stunt mental perceivement. I don't buy into that sort of arguement of yours all that much.

For the sake of being accurate, conjectures ought be made with caution when absence of experience has left them untested. Then again, perhaps there is no absence behind your comment.

Well if you must know way back in ancient times long ago I use to be a drug dealer and a dope head.

So yes I do understand a great deal when it concerns expiriences on the issue.