- Ephemeron wrote:
- Satyr wrote:Discrimination is the same as awareness.
Only to the indiscriminate.
Ah, another one.
To discriminate:
From an on-line Dictionary
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - Dictionary.com wrote:
dis·crim·i·nate
[dih-skrim-uh-neyt; dih-skrim-uh-nit] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] verb, dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, adjective.
verb (used without object)
1.
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2.
to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
verb (used with object)
3.
to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4.
to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.
adjective
5.
marked by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.
Notice that apart from #1, the rest describe a perception of difference.
The first describes a reaction to this perception of difference.
To discriminate is to perceive, to be aware of a divergence. It is a higher level of consciousnesses.
To perceive uniformity, in a colored wall, let us say, is to perceive no divergence across its surface. The wall appears the same across its expanse.
To see patches of diverging shades in the wall is to distinguish a divergence, no matter how subtle, which makes the wall more intricate and less uniform.
I can, if I like, step back away from the wall losing details due to my weak senses, in this way comforting myself that all is the same on a wall which is uniform and one.
When I move closer or if my eyesight, my sensual acuity, is more powerful, I perceive divergence where the other only sees uniformity.
The other is therefore less aware of what the wall is, in relation to the one who can find subtle details of divergence.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- A difference is, awareness describes the object in its passive state, discrimination, in its active state.
There is no passive state as all is active and (inter)acting.
Discrimination is to find a pattern of divergence in the dynamic world.
To be non-active is to be non-existent.
But if by "passive" what is meant is submissive, then passivity is a sign of weakness.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- They are the sedatives which pacify and paralyze the mind into inactivity and contentment.
To perceive as much as one can and to experience as much as one can handle is to discriminate as much as one can, to go beyond the surface, to penetrate further into the meat of things. Every new investigation exposes new questions and doubts. Because every experience is unique and singular, judgments qualify only where they are specific to what is relevant.
To perceive is to perceive as much of what is apparent.
What is apparent never hides...unless it willfully tries to mask its appearance.
To perceive is not only to see...it is to smell, to touch, to hear.
The heart is apparent, but inaccessible to light and so not visually perceived.
There is no hidden reality.
All that exists is active...all that is active can be perceived.
The apeparance of another, of an otherness, is not accidental nor is it superficial.
What appears is the manifestation of its entire past.
The perceiving mind interprets this past in color, form, texture, smell, sound, tone etc.
Each divergence, each fluctuation, each reverberation, is translated, by the mind, in a form it can process.
Black, white, red, are not superficial, nor are they singular. They are an important aspect of an otherness, as this participates along with form, texture, size, smell, sound, in a an (inter)action with mediums (light, air, electromagnetism) which then stimulates the sense organ and is translated accordingly.
The color of a banana is no less significant than its odor, its form, its smell.
It total appearance is a product of its past. It is its essence interpreted by the human mind.
Each and every blemish, shade, detail, exhibits its past.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Going back to Fénelon: To think as this is the most hated way one can think.
Certainly, no one can think as this if they were to perceive no diversity anymore than one can imagine the conceptual without acknowledging the concrete.
Um...yeah..."concrete" sounds like an attempt to introduce the "spirit" by using a different word.
Of course, the automatic association of discrimination, or of perception, with hatred, is like this automatic association of emptahy with compassion. A trained response by a culture trying to establish internal stability by creating the illusion of uniformity, or homogeneity.
To perceive and acknowledge diversion, does not entail any automatic response to it.
If I can discern a dog from a cat, this does not mean that I will beat the cat and pat the dog.
The discernment is separate from the response.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Humanity in this regard is a qualitative concept so far as it is the concept from which the concrete emerges and takes a definitive form.
A gross generalization slandering any attmepts to refine percpetion and to dinstiguish shades within its theoretical uniformity.
Humanity: a species designation, based on discriminating between apes, for one...and founded on sexuality...which it then, hypocritically, denies as a valid category.
The uniformity in behavior is reinforced by institutionalization and brainwashing, from birth, creating this mimicry that supports the notion of equality in potentials.
Without divergence evolution does not work...and empiricism becomes a joke.
No matter how minute the difference each divergence signifies something, and builds over time, due to the Butterfly Effect.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Therefore the basis of Fenelon’s love: “to love humanity, more than the fatherland” is to acknowledge the fatherland as the emergent flower from a greater generating principle of humanity. Likewise, the family is the fruition of the fatherland of which the man is the seed which carries the potential of the entirety within. There could be no plant without the seed and neither can there be the seed without the plant.
And based on this self-negating "logic" one must then love the ape more than humanity...and life more than apes...and God more than the world.
It turns man into a molecule with no significance, buried in a vast expanse of uniformity, tricking us with its multiplicities.
To love something you must define it.
To define something you must distinguish it.
I define humanity as that which possesses one trait that separates it from all other animals...but which is not uniformly distributed across all populations.
I will not mention this one trait which distinguishes humanity but yet is not something all humans are equally endowed with.
But, if I am correct, then some are more human than others.
You define humanity as that which can fuck and produce children.
Your definition is base, though you profess to be enlightened.
To be human is not to be forced to behave in a particular manner...nor trained to imitate behavior.
A chimp can do as much.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Mankind, is a concept of order as the highest idea.
Idea indeed.
A concept of leveling.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- More precisely it is the essence which manifests itself through the ever expanding variety. Goethe considered this “typus” to be the unitary form that has no being in itself except what is always coming to be.
- Goethe wrote:
- Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and
always be, men and only men.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Therefore the word mankind refers to a concept which does not exist, has no being or form on its own and is indeed an abstraction. But it has concreteness in the varieties which have developed in accordance with the conditions of the world.
As does ape...and mammal...and plant.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- In man we find a combination of two essences, that of the animal nature and that of the mind.
We find the same in all organisms, to greater or lesser degrees.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Man is a product of these two to the degree they are either pushed or push. To be a superior man is to harmonize that nature with mind to the external world. Or, to control and direct appetites rather than be controlled and directed by them, to move rather than be moved.
The Will is the focus of all aggregate energies at the disposal of an organism
This requires consciousness; self-consciousness is the next stage.
To efficiently and effectively direct these energies one must discern, discriminate...be conscious of a divergence, no matter how small.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Back to the quote by Fenelon. As I said, those which think like this are to be vilified by almost everyone. This majority being defined by those which think broadly, (the many exploit the few) and those which think narrowly (the few exploit the many).
Ha!!
And yet history is about the latter.
The reversal or the illusion of it, occurred with the infection of Judeo-Christian nihilism.
Hierarchies were overturned...definitions reversed...the world turned upside down...the meek shall inherit the earth.
A spiritual disease, manipulating the masses who depend on these leis to feel safe and sound...and wanted and valuable, and appreciated.
Like telling them that beauty is skin deep and something "inside", rather than an apparent manifestation of inherited genetic health.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Where one is cynical the other is optimistic, one imagines that man is not capable of being more and the other that he is incapable of being less. Yet, time and time again both views, are proven wrong. Even though these two views are contradictory, when taken together they exhibit the unified view, (everyone exploits everyone). And this is the condition of the world that has dominated all ideals and societies. The hatred for man in all or some of its parts is the most common way a man can think and so constitutes the HERD mentality.
And yet, emotional projections aside, one must be disatisfied to act.
One must know he is a slave to hope to be free.
One must reject to overcome.
To "hate" feces is to not ingest it and get ill on its decay.
What one rejects is what defines him.
Life is a continuous rejection of death.
I reject ignorance and so I act in a way that promotes knowledge.
I am dissatisfied with my weight so I act to lower it.
I think I am valuable and that my loyalty means something, so I reject attempts to turn me into a whore, giving herself to every man with the right amount.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Though it is no doubt true that very few think correctly (nobody exploits anybody). And this is because the very conditions of the world tend to perpetuate and favor what is common and base. Since, society exists because of an exploitation of needs into that of wants, everything is pushing us toward dissolution and misanthropy. Every instance and occurrence, every observation and discovery brings us to a hatred for mankind in either its entirety or in part because the love of self is the principle object by which we secure our happiness.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Human domination has made life boring...comfortable, predictable...it achieves this by uniforming, training preferred behaviors, limiting awareness etc.
To this leveling some few rebel...they reject.
Now man is both predator and prey, where once he huddled amongst his won to protect himself from predators and enemies.
Now his own kind is both.
Fragmentation ensues as uniformity is pushed.
More refined definitions emerge to describe what is human, or what is "my kind."
- Ephemeron wrote:
- And so the great object of the philosopher has been to correct those points of view, which have been too broad and too narrow and those that are moderate, by teaching men how to look through eyes other than their own.
Empathy does not turn a chimp into a human.
Being magnanimous in times of comfort is easy. One feels pity towards a pet.
But when hard times come, when nature breaks through the facade of civilized behavior, the old ways return.
you see them every time there is a war or a riot...those
manimals emerging, wearing stylish hats and artistic symbols.
Training an animal not to shit in the house does not make it aware.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- Goethe held the view that man could never know himself through self contemplation or introspection. According to him the inner knowledge of man was revealed in outer experience: He said,
“If I know my relationship to myself and to the outer world, then I call it truth. And in this way each person can have his own truth and it is always the same one.”
Indeed, and so (inter)activity exposes divergence and essence.
Light interacts with a wall, which then takes on a vibration that interacts with my ocular nerve.
The information is transferred, via a nervous system, to a processing hub (my brain) where it is interpreted using evolved methods which take this interactivity and interpret it in form, color, and so on.
The method is simple, but not superficial...as it is successful.
- Ephemeron wrote:
- The oneness of humanity is not to mold all view points to one specific view point but to provide the glass that allows one to see from their conflicting view points, then no matter where they peer down or up from, no matter where they contradict, the view is always the same.
In short: it is a form of social blindness.
A communal blind-spot, for the sake of comfort.
Let's pretend this sensual data means nothing here, but everything there; let us pretend that here, slight differences matter, whereas there they are too small to matter; let us pretend that this sensual data is relevant, whereas that one is not; let us pretend that although we are empiricists, our senses really do not matter when it comes to humans.
The view being always the same, makes it a stunted view, turning vision into a farce.
Why look?
Ask your neighbor to look for ya.
Let him be your eyes.
Thanks for playing.
