Pay attention, grandma. It does differ. Noble does not mean self-referential, solipsistic or selfish. Noble means half-selfish half-selfless. Be ay el ay an see ee, balance.
Noble means pure (of whatever essence).
In what language?
Well in English before they started using it to refer to pure-blood high-class. And the online sources used to say so, but now I can’t find any that say anything but “of quality”, “high-class”, or “inert”. The concept of purity and integrity of essence still remains within those categories. They just don’t say so any more it seems. Maybe that is one of those many things that people are not supposed to know (the very idea of purity has become heresy). 
They are mutually dependent.
I am going to state something extremely important here. It is something truly amazing. When I had this depression and anhedonia (absence of pleasure), this lead me to a personal belief (conclusion) that pleasure is the only truly good thing in life, suffering is the only truly bad thing in life, while everything else in life is neutral (neither truly good or bad). I went online and typed in the question “Is pleasure the only good thing in life?” and I have found an established belief system that basically matches what I just said word for word. This belief is known as Psychological Hedonism. I am now going to give you the link (url) to this website:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
Now that you’ve read it, I find it too much of a coincidence that an intelligent person such as myself has come up with a personal conclusion and that there also so happens to be a belief supported by science that says the exact same things I’m saying. Therefore, pleasure really must be the only truly good thing in life then and suffering must be the only truly bad thing in life.
I can honestly say here that this is something truly tragic though because this would mean that we would have every right to treat suffering people like shit since they are bad people since they feel bad. If we suffer, then we should treat ourselves like shit since we are bad people who deserve to be thrown and tossed away like metal scraps. It would also mean that we should bow down before those types of people who derive pleasure from making our lives shit since they are the greater people since they have pleasure in their lives.
Who cares what you were told? Why are you so indirect in your conversations? This is a conversation between me and you, not between Nietzsche and you, or Satyr and you.
Pleasure is bias. Pain is bias. Survival is bias. Selfishness is bias. Selflessness is bias. None of these are goals in themselves, but symptoms/consequences of neutrality (or partiality) that has survived. This “neutrality” (also known as balance or order) should not be conceived statically, as a state of neutrality, since there is no such a thing as a state of neutrality, but dynamically, as a continuous never-ending movement towards neutrality. Actual states will always be biased . . . but once you take the general trend/tendency/movement into account, you should be able to qualify it as order (if it moves towards neutrality) or as chaos (if it moves away from neutrality.) Vector is more important than the actual state.
You say that we like sex and truth because it aids survival, but this is incorrect, merely a logical attempt to reduce fundamental non-linearity to linearity. We like sex and truth means we have a positive memory of sex and truth, and this memory is not a memory of sex and truth aiding in survival, but a memory of underlying “metaphysical attraction” which governs these activities, attraction which is always mutual. We like sex because sex leads to ordering, not because it leads to survival. Similarly, we like truth because truth leads to ordering. Very little to do with survival . . . It’s more correct to say we like survival because survival leads to ordering, just as we like death because death protects us from becoming disordering. There is a huge difference between a need and an actual “metaphysical attraction”. Need, we can say, is a memory of attraction. Need is internal/selfish, attraction is relation/mutual.
EDIT: We like sex and truth not because they lead to ordering but because they are ordering. Of course, once they become a need (which is to say a memory), they are no longer ordering but disordering. And this is the problem of hedonism.
So you think that a perfectly noble person would be one who reached a perfect state of balance between biases in a way that he becomes neutral to everything.
How… buddhist.
You know, they have surgical procedures that can do that. It implies removing very large portions of your brain, sure, but who needs those anyway?!
Oh no, not Buddhist, love, Buddhists conceive neutrality statically, they force themselves into neutrality, and when you force yourself into something-anything, even neutrality, then you are no longer neutral but selective/needy.
Surgical procedures are also forceful. Aren’t they? You said it yourself, they remove very large portions of your brain . . .
But… if you aim to reach that state with the sheer power of your will, isn’t that forceful… love?
Yes, it is, but I never said I want to reach it with the sheer power of my will.
You see, forcefulness may create balance in the short term, but in the long term, it always leads to deeper imbalance. Because to force yourself means to disconnect from your past/identity.
Not all forcefulness is forceful though. There is such a thing as inactive activity . . . activity which comes directly from your past.
Inactive activity, or in other words, instinctive activity. Instinctive activities are easy, imposing no stress upon the organism. Forceful/willed activities, on the other hand, are strenuous/stressful.
Whoever said that instincts give pleasure/happiness. This is true in certain cases. When they align, for example, they are happy. This is a rare state of order. When they are exaggerated, they can be happy too, but this is degenerate. That is hedonism. Many other times, however, instincts hurt, and it is precisely this pain that motivates people to deny them through self-denial (masochism) or self-exaggeration (hedonism.) Enduring instincts is the problem. It is well known, for example, that many mental disorders (e.g. panic attacks, agoraphobia, etc) are resolved by surrendering to pain, by not fighting it. Surrendering to instincts, however, is often associated with hedonism, but that is no surrender, that’s the opposite, exaggeration . . .
…as is male chauvenism 
This might actually be a good definition for it, James, in a sense.
Noble to me means something which is incapable of being corrupted. It’s true that we all have the capacity for being or becoming corrupted but someone who is noble would transcend that corruptability after struggle and practice - always.
Anyway, that’s what I intuit nobility is about. A peon could be noble. And royality could be a ja
Never?
Never ever?
So… go with the flow?
I see you have expanded on that, since I started writing this post. I had to run and deliver some toys.
I’ll go read it
Magnus Anderson
That would be news to me. I thought that buddhists conceived neutrality (if one can even use that expression) or coming to balance/residing somewhere in the middle, or maybe we can say unaffected/unfluenced by, by simple awareness and mindfulness, letting go, detachment, in the seeing and the being. It may take time but I don’t think that a “true” buddhist would the force the issue.
Unless your use of the word 'force" has a different meaning here.
.
I do agree with this. One of the only ways one can reach neutrality is by a free flowing mindful spirit, letting go, perhaps becoming a bit of a nihilist by seeing this or that as having only so much “real” meaning.
Forcing anything can lead to neediness, inner conflict/ dis-ease.
.
That would depend on how stubborn the part of the body was when it came to being taken out. There might be a better word to use there.
lol If that were the case, there might not be much of a “YOU” left.
By inactive, do you mean will-less?
So this is hedonism…
But this isn’t?
Surrendering to instincts is not hedonism. I see.
It is an inactive activity that leads you, in a non forceful way, to balance.
Is that so?
Magnus Anderson,
…
.
You mean like wei wu wei?
… at the still point, there the dance is, But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity, Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards, Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.
T. S. Eliot [1]
Eliot describes it beautifully and profoundly.
In what way do you mean this?
I don’t think that it comes from the past - it surges up from the PRESENT MOMENT…it’s called awareness.
Unless you’re trying to say that the wisdom of a past experience gives rise to it…shows the practicality of it.
Is it possible that in forcing yourself you are actually remaining connected with your past, with your sense of identity - in other words, following along with the same patterns which have become built into you, which have conditioned you, et cetera.
In not forcing yourself, in going with the flow, you are like a river, ever changing, flux, you don’t necessariy “identify” with a particular self…you’re changeable. It is in forcing ourselves that we remain the same - with the old past and sense of identity.