Digital Narratives

eyesinthedark wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Why do you long for beauty and the symmetry, order, it implies?
Because in nature it is absent and entropy is the experienced.

This is only partially true, there is beauty in nature also, harmony and symmetry, from the moon, the stars and sun, to the flora and fauna. There is also the ugliness of death and the chaos of the terrain, and it is this ugliness man has tried to escape from. I think we should try to preserve some of it, weeds and all.

The irony is that life could not exist without asymmetry. A perfectly symmetrical universe is a dead universe. Asymmetry must exist, as the possibility for change. It is the imperfections in the crystal, in the DNA, which give rise to new shapes, new morphologies.

Perhaps what we find attractive in the perfectly symmetrical is death, an end to life and suffering. The imagined perfection, immutable and unchanging.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Quote :

Right here is where your total rejection of the world shines through.

I don't hate the world.

There are parts of me that like it and there are parts of me that dislike it.

If I hated the world, I wouldn't be sitting here typing to you, I'd be swinging from the ceiling.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what spirituality is and where it comes from.

And I gave you a possible explanation.
I also gave you the possible root of paradoxes and how the religious sentiment is, or can be when it comes to most popular spiritual dogmas, a self-contradicting one.

Why don't you "swing from the ceiling" if you hate the world?
For one the religions of today have considered this and have made ti a "sin", with the threat of eternal damnation given to dissuade the most vehement self-hater from ending it all.
A second possible reason is what I often refer to as "the ideal not meeting the real". The ideal offered by Christianity is not sufficient to deal with the real, and so it depends on brain-washing, threats, promises and still the real does not bend. Look at adultery in Islamic states and how despite the threat of death it still occurs.

Symmetry is attractive wherever we perceive it, such as in the cycles of nature or in cosmic predictability. The mind is an ordering mechanism and it finds order attractive, particularly if it is ready-made or is characterized by a higher level of it.
This is what is attractive about power or how even physically ugly but highly intelligent male can be irresistible to a female, or to a lesser male or a child.

Bah-Humbug!

satyr wrote:

This is also known as the MTV effect, the MTV generation.
Short attention spans nurtured by marketing ploys which play upon a natural tendency for consciousness to skirt from stimuli to stimuli.

The shallowness produced is advantageous for globalizing conditions.

Quote :

Your obsession with bullying is indicative of your type's association with the meek and the vulnerable.
You see yourself in the victim.

This is also the case when one witnesses wolves cornering a lamb on Nature Shows. The observer automatically associates with the victim, no matter how he claims to be secure and confident..giving new meaning to the metaphor of cynicism or to the tired example of "glass half empty"...usually used by simplistic thinkers to defend their absolute loyalty to uniformity.
It is an existential reaction to the indifference of nature.

Of course it is founded on similarity. The observer perceives in the lamb what is most like himself/herself and projects himself in its place, feeling its pain, imagining its stress, sharing in its fate.
Rarely does one relate to the joy of the kill the predator must be feeling, for the hunger, the depravity, is not something the average pampered, dolt, can relate to.

First of all, I knew I could count on you, satyr.

That said, the first quote is kind of hard to disagree with. At the same time, I think there is a lot more to it that is complimentary to your point. For instance, James Burke, in one of his several TV series (back when TV actually tried to educate people) pointed out (this was the mid 90’s) that technology, or I should say the progress of technology, was progressing in a manner similar to Galileo’s Law of Falling Bodies: at a constant rate of acceleration. The problem was, he pointed out, was that this could lead to a “taste for novelty”. This taste for novelty, if you think about it, would lead to a higher stimulus level as was indicated by the No Fear movement we were both witness to. Furthermore, I think it would lead to the kind of surface appearance without substance I get from your articulations -by which I mean you recognizing them, not you representing them.

Now as far as the second quote: it was a fair and articulate assessment of me. I have no problem with it.

However, I think you underestimate my taste for the kill in the last point. Now you, yourself, have pointed to the maternal aspect of what I do. Now imagine what a mother would do to protect its young. Think about nature. Imagine the extremes she would go to. Imagine the bloodlust.

Beyond that, it's a matter of your estimate of my intelligence.

d63tark wrote:

First of all, I knew I could count on you, satyr.

I think you know a lot about me, dear boy.
I'm like putty in your small boyish hands.

d63tark wrote:

Now as far as the second quote: it was a fair and articulate assessment of me. I have no problem with it.
However, I think you underestimate my taste for the kill in the last point. Now you, yourself, have pointed to the maternal aspect of what I do. Now imagine what a mother would do to protect its young. Think about nature. Imagine the extremes she would go to. Imagine the bloodlust.

I don't need to imagine, dear boy...or should I call you my "dear girl" from now on?
I've seen it first-hand.

I think an animal cornered is to be respected, no matter how small and insignificant it might be out in the open.
I've personally been attacked by a rooster when as I child I tried to catch him.

Now here's something a mother like you might not have considered:
The mother's sacrifice, her risks, her devotion and willingness to die, suits the male who simply impregnates her with an idea.
Also, a mother is helpless outside hr group.

A pride of lions rarely attacks a healthy buffalo, but when they do they try to separate it from the herd because no matter how stupid and cowardly a buffalo is on it sown it becomes a formidable force in a crowd. Now, if this buffalo also happens to be protecting a youngling then the risks are even greater.
This is why herbivore herd animals tend to close ranks when under threat....excluding the alien entity.

You are free to believe that I've "underestimated your taste for the kill" because this might be an underestimation of my thinking which satisfies my motives.
But, just to make this more sporting, maybe me running "wild" and "growling" through your herd was a way of making all you "loving", "rational", "enlightened" cows show that underlying nature....hiding beneath that thick hide.
Maybe, it was a way of separating the weakest amongst you, so that the rest could then run to its aid, exposing herd-dynamics.

But seriously, what a boring bunch of cows you are over there.
Even your little vengeance are typical and dull.

The only thing interesting left there is some Nieatzchean bitch who sucks on her "bid daddy's" cock year after year...after year.... and who has now come to imagine him as another Jew...or a variant of the Christianity he, supposedly, despised.
Have you read Nietzsche comments on Spinoza or on the Jews?
Can't say for sure, because I really don't care about it all that much, but the man must be turning in his grave, seeing these post-modern effete fucks making a mockery of him.
The idol breaker being idolized; the anti-Judeo-Christian being associated with Judeo-Christian rhetoric...They also tried to reinvent Heidegger after the war, but modern technologies left behind too many texts and too much evidence to apologize for and to redefine so as to bring him up-to-speed with modernistic political-correctness.

Poor Nietzsche never had that luxury, and he lends himself to redefinitions with that poetic style of his. He learned form the best.
Schopenhauer, on the other hand, was not one to mince words and to play these girlish games.

But, was not Jesus also "reinterpreted" after his death? Do they not build shrines to a man who talked about the unnecessary symbolism of temples? Was not the very one who refused earthly authority made into an idol of earthly authority?

----------------------------

d63tark wrote:

Beyond that, it's a matter of your estimate of my intelligence.

This should not worry you too much, dear girl, for "intelligence" is but a part of it.
My estimations are always fluid...ongoing and constantly reworked. But I have found that when it comes to humans, particularly those with a liberal slant and living in this post-modern age, these adjustments are slight...for there is a consistence, as you would expect with herbivores and simple creatures who deny their nature, or the existence of their nature.

For instance, the ploys they use to "anger" me, is becoming a steady supply of mirth for me.
I give into it, because it's funny....


So fuck you you stupid cunt!!!

satyr wrote:

Your obsession with bullying is indicative of your type's association with the meek and the vulnerable.
You see yourself in the victim.

Perhaps. But it might also be recognition of how silly, unproductive, and, ultimately, superficial it is.

I would further argue that the obsession with the act of bullying is indicative of your type’s insecurity, lack of confidence in their assertions, and overinflated need for attention.

You may see yourself as the predator. But this is only the product of fantasies of empowerment that all men tend to engage in. Consequently, this raises the question of how adequate and prepared your type is for the very scenario based on social Darwinism that you are endorsing. I mean it’s one thing to sit behind your computers, tighten your fists, and talk tough. But how ready for it are you, really?

Quote :

giving new meaning to the metaphor of cynicism or to the tired example of "glass half empty"...usually used by simplistic thinkers to defend their absolute loyalty to uniformity.
It is an existential reaction to the indifference of nature.

Yes, let’s talk about simplistic. For instance: this notion that any assertion that isn’t explicitly negative must be the product of dishonesty and uniformity –that is with no real explanation of how that is. I mean it is real easy to establish a criterion based on cynicism and negativity, then proceed to extract bleakest assessments you can find. In that sense, you’re like the cliché of the Goth existentialist. It’s something else to honestly confront the complexity of the world.

Furthermore, let’s talk about pretention: such as the use of the qualifier “existential” which seems a little redundant given that all reactions are existential, and can only be there to make the statement seem a little more intelligent than it actually is.

Quote :

Of course it is founded on similarity. The observer perceives in the lamb what is most like himself/herself and projects himself in its place, feeling its pain, imagining its stress, sharing in its fate.
Rarely does one relate to the joy of the kill the predator must be feeling, for the hunger, the depravity, is not something the average pampered, dolt, can relate to.

Actually, I would argue that average pampered dolt is the one incapable of projecting themselves into the lamb because they’re the ones who, having fell into a position of power, automatically assume that their power was achieved in some kind of vacuum and is purely the product of will and not, say, genetics or social position. The folly of this, for instance, was quickly discovered by NAZI’s who, at the end of the war and at the discovery of their atrocities, found themselves standing on chairs with ropes around their necks, who found themselves in the position of the lamb.

So guys, it’s all good and well to sit behind your computers in heated homes with your belly full and feign the air of urban primates. But let’s be clear, while it may be natural for some beings to dominate others; it is equally natural for weaker members to pool their power to overthrow that of the dominant. It happens all the time in nature. In fact, everything taking its natural course, it seems a little silly to make any appeal to the authority of nature. Likely, any application of the word “natural” is little more than a simplistic attempt to give an assertion more certainty than it actually warrants.

But we all gotta find our flow. And if this is yours, knock yourself out. Given the extremity of it and the general moderate position of everyone else, it’s not likely to be of much consequence. However, should it find some validation through the social and political system, as it sometimes does, just remember, when the table turns yet again, as it often does in the face of injustice, to keep screaming heil hitler when you’re standing on a barrel with a noose around your neck.

And by the way, these notions that guys like me are out to “weaken” society or circumvent evolution: utter nonsense. If anything, we are the facilitators of progress and evolution in that we know, first, that the idea of progress is to move away from the very kind of world you are proposing, and, secondly, that a constant pissing contest with man and “nature” can only serve as an obstacle to the evolution and betterment of our species –that is in spite of the back stepping your engaged in here.

d63tark wrote:

satyr wrote:

Your obsession with bullying is indicative of your type's association with the meek and the vulnerable.
You see yourself in the victim.

Perhaps. But it might also be recognition of how silly, unproductive, and, ultimately, superficial it is.

Wat you consider productive and what unproductive is based on your understanding and your motives.

Telling people what I really think has been very productive for me.
For one, it has kept the worse of the idiots as far away from me as possible.
Still it has not quite worked on you, has it boy?
I suspect there's an affinity you cannot admit...or wish to conceal.

d63tark wrote:

I would further argue that the obsession with the act of bullying is indicative of your type’s insecurity, lack of confidence in their assertions, and overinflated need for attention.

"Obsession" is what you call it having nothing to go on but my performance on your favorite barn.
Attention is what I get too much of....this is more of a desire to restrict attention.
If I wanted attention, you pathetic boy, then why would I make it so easy to be banned?

d63tark wrote:

You may see yourself as the predator. But this is only the product of fantasies of empowerment that all men tend to engage in.

I am no physical predator, boy, because that avenue is denied me.
But I am an intellectual predator. This you and your kind call "bullying".
I pounce on weakness, stupidity, and the inability to defend what is considered "self-evident".

In a world brimming with stupidity, and getting worse, trying to put a stop to some small part of it by rescuing the few from its grips seems like the least I can do...boy.
You defend the herd, superboy, I seek a more refined creature.

The "bully" here is you, and the system you serve, with its rules against certain thoughts and deeds, and its etiquette and its self-evident "deserving" and its sanctity of life.
Your defense of illness is your downfall, boy.

d63tark wrote:

Consequently, this raises the question of how adequate and prepared your type is for the very scenario based on social Darwinism that you are endorsing. I mean it’s one thing to sit behind your computers, tighten your fists, and talk tough. But how ready for it are you, really?

Listen boy, this is a typical reply. The answer will have to wait for a face-to-face...but until then, you little man, consider this possibility:
Why does defending a proposition have to be accompanied by a personal benefit?
This is where your stupidity shows itself, boy.
You assume, because this is true of your kind, that to believe something is true, or more true, must mean that the one doing so personally benefits from it.
See why you are a stupid boy?

Boy, I do not have to benefit from a rejection of God to reject the concept on purely objective arguments.
Boy, I do not have to be pretty to say that appearance matters.

d63tark wrote:

Yes, let’s talk about simplistic. For instance: this notion that any assertion that isn’t explicitly negative must be the product of dishonesty and uniformity –that is with no real explanation of how that is. I mean it is real easy to establish a criterion based on cynicism and negativity, then proceed to extract bleakest assessments you can find. In that sense, you’re like the cliché of the Goth existentialist. It’s something else to honestly confront the complexity of the world.

Poor old-boy...there is no "positive/negative" outside subjective interpretations.
What you consider "positive" is for me a ridiculous proposition based on nothing more than emotion and personal taste....taste which you lack, having been brought up in a culture of no culture.

The idea that "love will save the world" or that "all deserve respect" is your emotional hope, boy...it has nothing to do with objective thinking. It ensures that no matter how stupid you are you will be respected. It pushes natural selection back.
For you this is "positive" in the short-term, because you can only think about immediate gratification and personal welfare...but for me it spells out the coming doom.

d63tark wrote:

Furthermore, let’s talk about pretention: such as the use of the qualifier “existential” which seems a little redundant given that all reactions are existential, and can only be there to make the statement seem a little more intelligent than it actually is.

Pretension, boy, is when one pretends to be more or less than what one is. Now you show me how you are more and I less.
I might be able to pretend to be physically stronger than what I am, as you allude to, because this is the only area where you harbor a hope...but how does one pretend to be smarter than what he is?
Have you "put me in my place", intellectually?
No, you just prance and declare and then run for cover behind the walls of the barn you feel most at home in.

Boy, the only thing left to you is to imply that my physical power is not as formidable as my brain power.
This is how you console yourself, boy.

If you wait a few more years, it might become true...still you are a boy compared to me in the only area where it matters.

d63tark wrote:

Actually, I would argue that average pampered dolt is the one incapable of projecting themselves into the lamb because they’re the ones who, having fell into a position of power, automatically assume that their power was achieved in some kind of vacuum and is purely the product of will and not, say, genetics or social position. The folly of this, for instance, was quickly discovered by NAZI’s who, at the end of the war and at the discovery of their atrocities, found themselves standing on chairs with ropes around their necks, who found themselves in the position of the lamb.

Boy, who said anything about a "vacuum"? There are no absolutes, remember, boy?
What is pathetic is when a lamb begins thinking of itself as noteworthy and powerful because there's a fence and a dog protecting it from those that do not care about its declarations and what it thinks it deserves and what is right.
Go back to the barn, hound-dog.

How the Jew cheers what he cannot understand.
The Nazi failure, not that I am one, was due to many factors.

d63tark wrote:

So guys, it’s all good and well to sit behind your computers in heated homes with your belly full and feign the air of urban primates. But let’s be clear, while it may be natural for some beings to dominate others; it is equally natural for weaker members to pool their power to overthrow that of the dominant. It happens all the time in nature. In fact, everything taking its natural course, it seems a little silly to make any appeal to the authority of nature. Likely, any application of the word “natural” is little more than a simplistic attempt to give an assertion more certainty than it actually warrants.

Boy, we are entering an age where this is true for everyone.
The genes are substituted by another factor, pathetic dolt...memes.
I do not have to dominate you physically, even if I were permitted to try, but only mentally.
This medium does not prevent that...in fact it restricts the issue to one of purely intellectual matters.

This is not nature this is a human artifice...within which only memetics matter.
This is the new environment and I am adapting to it.

d63tark wrote:

But we all gotta find our flow. And if this is yours, knock yourself out. Given the extremity of it and the general moderate position of everyone else, it’s not likely to be of much consequence.

There you are, boy, thinking that I want to change things.
Boy, this is the environment...how it came about and how it is maintained is only relevant when one wishes to adapt to it and to survive within it.
There are no more lions and hyenas and wolves and cows and goats and sheep, but only the human equivalent.
You associate with the cows....I do not.
Your "love" and "respect" and "compassion" is universal, all-inclusive, non-discriminating, mine is openly not so.
You are a hypocrite...I am honest in the only place I can be.

Douche-bag, honestly exploring what being a cow means does not mean one is wishing to change the cow or is suffering from an inferiority complex in regards to cows and pigs and sheep...or is it that the "nice" is permitted to be spoken in your barn?

d63tark wrote:

However, should it find some validation through the social and political system, as it sometimes does, just remember, when the table turns yet again, as it often does in the face of injustice, to keep screaming heil hitler when you’re standing on a barrel with a noose around your neck.

Do you think of me as a Nazi, boy?
This is what makes you feeble and simple and stupid.
How can I be a Nazi, boy, when I am not Germanic?

d63tark wrote:

And by the way, these notions that guys like me are out to “weaken” society or circumvent evolution: utter nonsense. If anything, we are the facilitators of progress and evolution in that we know, first, that the idea of progress is to move away from the very kind of world you are proposing, and, secondly, that a constant pissing contest with man and “nature” can only serve as an obstacle to the evolution and betterment of our species –that is in spite of the back stepping your engaged in here.

Exactly, boy...you wish to "move away from nature"...you wish to offer an alternative, a better variant of it. You are offering social eugenics but crying against those that do so openly and directly, like the Nazis.

The leveling you call "progress" is nothing more than a conservation of the status quo, boy.
What are you conserving, boy?
Change?
But that happens with or without your support and your agreement, boy.

Is it the elimination of sexual roles or of racial categories?
But, boy, this is also occurring with and without your support and agreement.
Boy, entropy means the slow eradication of order.
Chaos is an increase in non-distinction.
You are a metaphysical conservative, boy, but a social liberal....because order only happens with human intervention.

What you call "betterment of our species" is what I oppose, for it is the diminishing of my species...the human one.
You, boy, can imagine a world with no wars, no sexes, no races, nothing other than love and utopian paradise all you want.
I live in reality.
Your secular Christianity sickens me, boy.
I don't need to replace you or stop you, boy....I only need to exploit you.
Your stupidity satisfies my needs, no less than a herd's behavior satisfies the hunger of a wolf.

I am no formidable foe nor am I anti-social...I am merely more refined...boy.
I am selective with my love. My love is not a whore's love.
I am more selective with my loyalty and my compassion and my care and my association.
My friendship and caring is more precise and more selective.

Your simplistic generalities of human/non-human only matter in a world with an external threat.
This is becoming less and less of the case...now the threat is more internal.
Now predator and prey does not refer to an alien species feeding and exploiting another species...it is more precise and discriminating with its categories.
Now man is both predator and prey.

Human is not someone born with a certain biology, for me.
I have a more complex definition of what "human" means.

Quote :

The irony is that life could not exist without asymmetry. A perfectly symmetrical universe is a dead universe. Asymmetry must exist, as the possibility for change. It is the imperfections in the crystal, in the DNA, which give rise to new shapes, new morphologies.

As I've always said, life is a response to death, life as we know it could not exist without death. What is life but the preservation of it's own internal order? If one's order was never threatened, as if time were frozen, there would be no need to think, feel or act. Therefore, the spiritual impulse is a rejection of life, or at the very least, large portions of it.

An important word to remember when considering these issues is atrophy. When a muscle never has to move, is that good for the muscle? When a brain never has to calculate, is that good for the brain? No, it is unhealthy. Muscles were built to move, brains were made to think. When one can gorge on food and drug, is that healthy? Again, the answer is no. Thus, civilization, originally a means of preserving our species, becomes it's own worst enemy.

Another important word to remember is decadence. The Rome that fell to German barbarians and Huns was not the same Rome it was in the late republic and in the early empire. Something happened. The Romans became a fat, soft people, then it fell to peoples it never had trouble dealing with before. Christianity weakened it, no doubt, a memetic blow, but then there were other, genetic factors as well, which made Christianity more palatable.

You could the say our decline began in the 1960s. No doubt the western world will fall, like the Roman empire, to fitter, hungrier nations (China, India) and to pesky flees, flies, mosquitoes and vultures (Jews, Gypsies, Niggers) unless there's a genetic and memetic intervention, a genetic and memetic renaissance, so to speak.

As we speak, there is an intervention, but it is promoting sicknesses and calling it "socialism", "affirmative action" and "Christian Zionism", allowing animals who otherwise could not make it on their own, to be fed, clothed and housed. Unemployed niggers, retards and cripples can now pop out ten, twenty kids, overpowering white populations with their recessive genes. We have become our own worst enemy, the Chinese will have no trouble feeding on us in a century or two, or less. These are good times friends, enjoy them while you can, they will not last long, another half a century or so.. or move to the wilderness and start an oasis of humanity, preserving the best of civilization whilst discarding the worst.

Quote :

Perhaps what we find attractive in the perfectly symmetrical is death, an end to life and suffering. The imagined perfection, immutable and unchanging.

Well, we find the positives attractive, life, pleasure, love, joy, not the negatives. Could the positives exist without the negatives? Probably not.

satyr wrote:

I am no physical predator, boy, because that avenue is denied me.
But I am an intellectual predator. This you and your kind call "bullying".
I pounce on weakness, stupidity, and the inability to defend what is considered "self-evident".

If this is the case, then we’re on the same page, satire….

I’m sorry, I meant to say satyr.

Now that I have some time,



let's play buddy.

And let's agree that I'm really not as interested in your lackeys as I am you.

Let's see how my hunt turns out.

Satyr wrote:

eyesinthedark wrote:

Quote :

Right here is where your total rejection of the world shines through.

I don't hate the world.

There are parts of me that like it and there are parts of me that dislike it.

If I hated the world, I wouldn't be sitting here typing to you, I'd be swinging from the ceiling.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what spirituality is and where it comes from.

And I gave you a possible explanation.
I also gave you the possible root of paradoxes and how the religious sentiment is, or can be when it comes to most popular spiritual dogmas, a self-contradicting one.

Why don't you "swing from the ceiling" if you hate the world?
For one the religions of today have considered this and have made ti a "sin", with the threat of eternal damnation given to dissuade the most vehement self-hater from ending it all.
A second possible reason is what I often refer to as "the ideal not meeting the real". The ideal offered by Christianity is not sufficient to deal with the real, and so it depends on brain-washing, threats, promises and still the real does not bend. Look at adultery in Islamic states and how despite the threat of death it still occurs.

Symmetry is attractive wherever we perceive it, such as in the cycles of nature or in cosmic predictability. The mind is an ordering mechanism and it finds order attractive, particularly if it is ready-made or is characterized by a higher level of it.
This is what is attractive about power or how even physically ugly but highly intelligent male can be irresistible to a female, or to a lesser male or a child.

And this, once again, is why your head hanging on my wall would be such a prize. You are unique in that you insist on walking alone. Intellectually, you are the ultimate predator.

This, of course, would make me the ultimate gamesman if I managed your head on my wall

Anyway, Satire.... Sorry, satyr: still love ya man. You make me what I am.

Let's...and by "play" I mean "kick my electronic ass"...boy.

As a preamble to this public whipping let us set up some general rules.


First, let us agree that every time you "rip me a new one" you should make it explicit, so as to best enjoy the moment. Otherwise you will be left with declaring yourself victor and claiming to have "destroyed" my positions with "good points" and I, along with many others, will be left wondering what you mean.
I wish to fully appreciate my public shaming and prevent the usual tactics.

Second, let us agree or not, that every time you say something stupid or which has nothing to do with my views, that I will be calling you "retard" just to let you know that this willful or not distortion has occurred.
This is not up for a vote, since I will be calling you "retard" and emphasizing it in red every time you do so, whether you like it or not.

Third, let us agree that it is you who come here to "teach me a lesson" as the "champion of the people" or "hero to the masses" that it is incumbent upon you, and you alone, to bring up the topic and the subject, dictating the parameters of the up and coming "ass kicking" which I will suffer at your able hands.
Every time you veer off the topic you presented I will be calling you a "coward" and a "hypocrite" emphasized thusly for aesthetic effect.

Read the retard trying to apologize and to comfort himself:

Quote :

One of the essays in the audio-book, concerning the leveling of talent, struck me as a little over exaggerated. The fact that expression has been democratized through the Internet does not stop certain people from standing out. That fact that anyone can write a blog, publish a song, or make a movie doesn't mean we'll all pay attention to it.

There will always be the ones that stand out; and they will always do so through editorial discretion.

The democritization of content does not mean the end of genius.

It would seem that "genius" emerges in a vacuum and that despite the Britney Spears' and the Mickael Jacknsons and the more recent Bubles and Biebers there is art being made somewhere....somewhere out there.

Where, and how would we recognize it having been brought up with crap and made to admire the base?
Where and how would we even find it within all the information overload and this avalanche of crap?
How would a genius "stand out" in a world where he cannot speak his mind, unless he defers to the emotions of the mediocre?

A genius will stand out but only amongst those who can appreciate the content, to the average moron, like this retard, he is as good as invisible or not "what he pretends to be" because even the idea of "genius" comes with a cultural and social definition.

This imbecile reminds me of a pretentious dolt who believing that democratic methods suffice invites the rabble to a dinner party hoping that amongst them one of them will say something profound and that he will hear it within the din of nonsensical clatter and trivial gossip.
In essence this moron is saying that even if the vast majority will not recognize it that he will...and he will because he too is one of those morons we invited and with quantity the possibility of quality increases.
This brings us to the monkeys with typewriters and Shakespeare metaphor.

This retard would prefer the typing away of thousands of apes, amongst which he will place himself as the one who can tell what is greatness, in the hopes that one of them, quite by accident will type a Shakespearean play.
In other words for this retard "genius" is accidental. A stroke of luck.

Therefore, we are all equally apes and what differentiates us is that one or two of us are lucky enough to accidentally type something with merit.

And this, dear fiends, is what a liberal retard is all about.
The idea of being more efficient with his search scares the shit out of him because he might be excluded from the discovery...and the idea that genius is more than just accidental hurts his feelings because of what it says about him and all his ancestry.

He's hoping that after thousands of years of clattering away one of his own blood will rise to the level of what he might call genius. He wishes to retain that possibility, even if there is an entire past which contradicts it.

satyr wrote:

Read the retard trying to apologize and to comfort himself:

Quote :

One of the essays in the audio-book, concerning the leveling of talent, struck me as a little over exaggerated. The fact that expression has been democratized through the Internet does not stop certain people from standing out. That fact that anyone can write a blog, publish a song, or make a movie doesn't mean we'll all pay attention to it.

There will always be the ones that stand out; and they will always do so through editorial discretion.

The democritization of content does not mean the end of genius.

It would seem that "genius" emerges in a vacuum and that despite the Britney Spears' and the Mickael Jacknsons and the more recent Bubles and Biebers there is art being made somewhere....somewhere out there.

Where, and how would we recognize it having been brought up with crap and made to admire the base?
Where and how would we even find it within all the information overload and this avalanche of crap?
How would a genius "stand out" in a world where he cannot speak his mind, unless he defers to the emotions of the mediocre?

A genius will stand out but only amongst those who can appreciate the content, to the average moron, like this retard, he is as good as invisible or not "what he pretends to be" because even the idea of "genius" comes with a cultural and social definition.

This imbecile reminds me of a pretentious dolt who believing that democratic methods suffice invites the rabble to a dinner party hoping that amongst them one of them will say something profound and that he will hear it within the din of nonsensical clatter and trivial gossip.
In essence this moron is saying that even if the vast majority will not recognize it that he will...and he will because he too is one of those morons we invited and with quantity the possibility of quality increases.
This brings us to the monkeys with typewriters and Shakespeare metaphor.

This retard would prefer the typing away of thousands of apes, amongst which he will place himself as the one who can tell what is greatness, in the hopes that one of them, quite by accident will type a Shakespearean play.
In other words for this retard "genius" is accidental. A stroke of luck.

Therefore, we are all equally apes and what differentiates us is that one or two of us are lucky enough to accidentally type something with merit.

And this, dear fiends, is what a liberal retard is all about.
The idea of being more efficient with his search scares the shit out of him because he might be excluded from the discovery...and the idea that genius is more than just accidental hurts his feelings because of what it says about him and all his ancestry.

He's hoping that after thousands of years of clattering away one of his own blood will rise to the level of what he might call genius. He wishes to retain that possibility, even if there is an entire past which contradicts it.

Yes, dear friends, and what genius are we to recognize in the sociopathic dribble that falls from Satyr’s mouth like rabies infested froth? He clearly wants us to recognize it as is indicated in such self-referencing statements as:

Quote :

Where, and how would we recognize it having been brought up with crap and made to admire the base?
Where and how would we even find it within all the information overload and this avalanche of crap?

Or:

Quote :

How would a genius "stand out" in a world where he cannot speak his mind, unless he defers to the emotions of the mediocre?

Or this clear reference to his own frustration:

Quote :

A genius will stand out but only amongst those who can appreciate the content, to the average moron, like this retard, he is as good as invisible or not "what he pretends to be" because even the idea of "genius" comes with a cultural and social definition.

Now my use of the term “genius” was a little frivolous since I tend to think the term is best left to historians. To me, to call someone a genius who is alive only means that they have done something that happens to have blown one away. Satyr clearly thinks differently. He thinks it is something that must be recognized by a select few –a few I assume to be like him. Once again:

Quote :

A genius will stand out but only amongst those who can appreciate the content….

So how does this work? There are a few elite like Satyr who recognizes such a quality even if it doesn’t last in popularity? So basically the genius of Nietzsche only exists because elites like Satyr recognized it and not because everyone who has read philosophy has generally read Nietzsche? I mean how does he separate the notion of genius from the fact that people generally recognize it? All this sounds like to me is a fallback for when he dies unrecognized like the rest of us mediocre apes.

On the other hand, Satyr clearly knows all the cues. You approach him and act like you understand him and he will rip you down and exclaim “you don’t know shit about me!” And of course you don’t. This is because Satyr resorts to a strategy of elusiveness for the sake of elusiveness with no content-based justification for doing so. He’s a little like the point in Thus Spake Zarathrusta about poets who will muddy shallow pools and act as if it is depth. In fact, I would argue that between the above, Wittgenstein’s nastiness, Diogenes condemnation of society, and Nietzsche’s self imposed isolation, Satyr has pretty much latched on to every philosophical cliché he can find to latch on to. It’s no wonder he’s also latched onto a philosophical criteria of “if it snarls, it must be meaningful.” This is why he would make such a nonsensical statement as this little gem:

Quote :

And this, dear fiends, is what a liberal retard is all about.
The idea of being more efficient with his search scares the shit out of him because he might be excluded from the discovery...and the idea that genius is more than just accidental hurts his feelings because of what it says about him and all his ancestry.

He's hoping that after thousands of years of clattering away one of his own blood will rise to the level of what he might call genius. He wishes to retain that possibility, even if there is an entire past which contradicts it.

What past is he talking about? The one of Dickens? Rousseau? Mills? Van Gogh? Williams? Wordsworth? Marx? Whitman? Steinbeck? And how did our culture progress without progressives? According to Satyr, we should have stopped some time ago. Or maybe these people don’t count because they don’t to the “elite” like Satyr. And what uncompassionate bastards brought us to the point we are now? Spencer?

And, of course, Satyr wants to believe “genius” is something more than accidental. He wants to believe it is merely a matter of exerting one’s will. What else could he think he’s doing when he uses such heavy-handed tactics as referring to me as “Moron” or “retard” or “boy”. He acts as if the shear forcefulness (or willfulness) of the terms would somehow feel like a club over my head. But, ultimately, all it feels like is overcompensation: an attempt to gloss over the failures, pretentions, and weaknesses of his arguments through force and momentum.

And this, dear friends, is what an authoritarian ape is all about. He is afraid that others will have made up their own minds about what “genius” or beauty is. And he clearly doesn’t want us to be part of it. That would make it less than esoteric knowledge and undermine his own fanciful bid to superiority. One can almost imagine him sitting in front of his keyboard snorting and grunting approvingly at what he has managed to produce from his mostly primal mind.

This will get them, he must snarl while drooling on himself, then break into a victorious “Hah!”

The irony (and self defeating aspect) of it is that he doesn’t want us to get it. If we did, we would be his equal. And that just wouldn’t do; now would it?

Oh! And Satyr:

Call me "moron", "retard", or "boy", and color it anyway you like.

But before this is over and done with: you will be my bitch.

And I will color it black against the cream of this background.

Merry Christmas, my friend.....

I think you've got my number, boy.

You are toying with me.
Excellent.

Type away, boy...eventually brilliance will come out...like with your children.


By the way, retard...there are those in this very forum who do get it.
You are just not one of them.

But what more could I do...force feed a baby?
I've got text lying around for years...all explaining my positions.
If you still don't get it...then you can pretty much go fuck yourself, and return to the dimwits you do get.

Satyr wrote:

I think you've got my number, boy.

You are toying with me.
Excellent.

Type away, boy...eventually brilliance will come out...like with your children.


By the way, retard...there are those in this very forum who do get it.
You are just not one of them.

But what more could I do...force feed a baby?
I've got text lying around for years...all explaining my positions.
If you still don't get it...then you can pretty much go fuck yourself, and return to the dimwits you do get.

I've been wondering, Satyr, if there isn't a little more to your username than some mischevious half=god that wonders around the woods creating mischeive.

I can't help but wonder if it isn't also a reference to " satire", a word of which both are rooted in.

I have to wonder:

Are you for real?

Or is it just parody?

Did you like my opening argument?

We are going to do this, my friend.


And we will work a little closer to greatness in the process.


It won't be personal



(while feeling personal

Once again:


merry christmas!


I hope you and your son enjoy it together



in the way it should be.

And why would I bother



if I didn't think my opposition was worthy of me?

If there's gonna be a throwdown it has to be done realtime in the chatbox, so the quality of the the 2 contestants can be clearly seen by the audience.

I suggest a neutral adjudicator be found. Perhaps Pav will volunteer once again...

Looking forward to your next move,



d.



Take care , man!





Love ya!

d63tark wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I think you've got my number, boy.

You are toying with me.
Excellent.

Type away, boy...eventually brilliance will come out...like with your children.


By the way, retard...there are those in this very forum who do get it.
You are just not one of them.

But what more could I do...force feed a baby?
I've got text lying around for years...all explaining my positions.
If you still don't get it...then you can pretty much go fuck yourself, and return to the dimwits you do get.

I've been wondering, Satyr, if there isn't a little more to your username than some mischevious half=god that wonders around the woods creating mischeive.

I can't help but wonder if it isn't also a reference to " satire", a word of which both are rooted in.

I have to wonder:

Are you for real?

Or is it just parody?

I want to keep you guessing, as my posts contain both seriousness and parody.
But this is meant to keep retards, like you, from staking too much of a claim on my time.

Tell ya what, retard...because you are already wasting my time....if and when you actually post something with substance or with something which contradicts my positions then I'll take you seriously...until then, I'll play with you and your kind.
So, are you gonna "put me in my place", moron; are you gonna "tear me a new one"?
Best you keep to psychoanalyzing me to your own kind, behind closed doors.

Love the taunts, by the way...they hurt me and manipulated me so wonderfully.

-------------

I love the bit about genius being recognized by historians. It leaves this aftertaste in my mouth...like being told who to consider "great" by others.
By the way, retard, did I ever say that I was or that I considered myself a genius?

You can't embark on a single conversation without your dick and arse getting in the way.

d63tark wrote:

Did you like my opening argument?

Which one?

apaosha wrote:

If there's gonna be a throwdown it has to be done realtime in the chatbox, so the quality of the the 2 contestants can be clearly seen by the audience.

I suggest a neutral adjudicator be found. Perhaps Pav will volunteer once again...

The boy wants an audience of those who are not present.
He wants his herd to witness him "thrashing" me. It's about self-validation. It isn't good unless someone sees you do it.

His intent is not to contradict my positions, for he has nothing to counter them with, but only to confront my style and my presumed arrogance.
It's purely personal. No ideas required in this.
He really has no argument...he only has feminine games and gossip.
He loves gossiping...did you see the thread he started over at ILP? He's almost begging for attention.

I love it.
I feel a declaration of victory coming on.
I mean it usually follows when a retard thinks he's made an "argument" when he's said nothing at all. It's a small step from there to the inevitable "I win!!!"
Luckily the majority are sympathetic to his plight and his ploy.
Nothing like a common foe to unity the herd.

A one-on-one would be wonderful.
I'm up for the ChatBox.
I'll make it fair...I'll be half-drunk when he tries to rip me to shreds...to numb my pain.

Satyr wrote:

apaosha wrote:

If there's gonna be a throwdown it has to be done realtime in the chatbox, so the quality of the the 2 contestants can be clearly seen by the audience.

I suggest a neutral adjudicator be found. Perhaps Pav will volunteer once again...

The boy wants an audience of those who are not present.
He wants his herd to witness him "thrashing" me. It's about self-validation. It isn't good unless someone sees you do it.

His intent is not to contradict my positions, for he has nothing to counter them with, but only to confront my style and my presumed arrogance.
It's purely personal. No ideas required in this.
He really has no argument...he only has feminine games and gossip.
He loves gossiping...did you see the thread he started over at ILP? He's almost begging for attention.

I love it.
I feel a declaration of victory coming on.
I mean it usually follows when a retard thinks he's made an "argument" when he's said nothing at all. It's a small step from there to the inevitable "I win!!!"
Luckily the majority are sympathetic to his plight and his ploy.
Nothing like a common foe to unity the herd.

A one-on-one would be wonderful.
I'm up for the ChatBox.
I'll make it fair...I'll be half-drunk when he tries to rip me to shreds...to numb my pain.

Quite frankly, Satyr, you sound like a bitch griping to her girlfriends.

Excellent pirouette!