the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

i don’t see how. i see that religious people’s arguments are flexible and fluxy but the people themselves stick to one base core ideal their entire lives never changing from it. Then they die believing they made the world a “better” place when usually they made it worse by their own definitions.

Flux means change, fluxy, and when you start willfully changing you become flux. The opposite of that is not changing, or only changing in order to nullify change.

And what is Christianity? Christianity is hatred of one’s past, of who one is, it is a desire for change. Christians might be closed-minded, resisting specific forms of change, but in relation to their past, to their instincts, they are liberal, open-minded . . .

Humans are only the sum of parts, lego bricks. Fluxy doesnt seem very fluxy if you limit it to one change only. Flux seems like a constant flow of change, not a single change that never changes after that. The word you seem to be looking for is mutation, not fluxy.

As far as human nature, loving thy neighbor is part of human programming but prudeness and assexuality is not (except for asexuals.) Question is, why does following simply DNA routines bring about pleasure? Brain is only a maze. Simply walking through a maze in the right order brings about magical things.

You are focusing on ideals, fluxy. Just because someone sticks to one ideal their entire life does not mean they are not fluxy. The ideal, after all, is just a logical construct, just a bunch of thoughts in one’s brain . . . they are not the root itself. The fact these thoughts do not change does not mean the individual is not fluxy. What matters is how this logical construct is related to one’s past, to one’s instincts, to one’s genes . . . does it deny one’s past, forcing a miraculous change on the organism, or is it in tune with one’s past, doing its best to preserve it? This is what matters.

Your concept of fluxfulness is limited to one’s thoughts . . . but thoughts are shadows. What matters is how these thoughts are related to the root of the organism, which is its past.

I think that applies to Christians who are closet homosexuals, constantly overriding their nature because of text dogma. Or preteen frequent masterbater christians. However, mature adult christains I wouldnt say deny their base DNA instinct, it’s chimpanzee instinct to place value on family, religion, and herdism. So Christianity feels very natural to them, especially with all it’s contradictions. For humans who are more monkey-like religion becomes tedious and boring, and conflicting. Not so for the chimps.

“Free will” is invented in order to make people fluxy. With “free will” people can easily disconnect from their roots, from their past, and attempt to become whatever they want to become. Quite liberal, isn’t it? Whether the individual will be sticking to a single artificial identity or moving from one to another is a different thing, in fact, quite insignificant thing, considering that the main problem, which is the disconnection from one’s past, is never addressed.

Once fluxfulness becomes a habit, it becomes difficult to tell what is natural and what is artificial . . .

Christians go to the local churches to reinforce their broken beliefs and traditions, which feels very natural for them to congregate and do so. Its no coincidence that christians are sports fans, because its the same mentality of going to the pub and celebrating your local team. Such behavoir is healthy for them and their tribe. However it irritates the monkeys who are more independent and don’t derive satisfaction from such repetitive nonsense. Chimps also form warring parties and go on war runs against other primates, so the chimps (Christians) are somewhat threatening and violent at times. It is monkey nature to flux, therefore flux is natural behavoir for monkeys. It is difficult for chimps to recognize the illusion of free will because they like to run away from thoughts and concepts which give them unusual feelings they rarely feel, the closeminded routine.

Chimps do flux but its more like a repetive predictable sine wave with a very low width of variation, almost a straight line.

I make a difference between natural and instinctive/habitual, fluxy. We aren’t born with perfect instincts and our ancestors weren’t gods. They made mistakes and we carry these mistakes with ourselves.

Natural, for me, in the context of behavior, means coordinated. It means that the strength of connections between instincts is good, it means that they are in tune with each other.

Love your neighbour is an instinct but it is an unnatural one, because it disconnects from all other instincts . . . our ancestors adopted such a behavior without first integrating it within our system of behavior. They couldn’t integrate it, because they had no time, or because they had no courage to do so.

This is why it is necessary to detach from one’s mind and reprogram it by strengthening the connections between various automatic mechanisms. This is what reason does.

The hyper-rational folks, on the other hand, do not fix what they have, they are installing new software on top of the malfunctioning operating system, thus creating further contradictions . . . they do not know how to fix what they have and they do not know because they cannot accept how broken they are . . . so they simplify/falsify their problems, and then they proceed to resolve these problems which were never there to begin with, while in reality creating further problems . . .

My opinion is that the hardware and software is broken. The majority of humans act like chimps, it is in their nature. However chimp society is not really a sustainable or courteous way of living. Being a monkey they don’t accept me in their social circles and most of the games and activities they do are boring anyway. I’m just grateful I wasn’t randomly born in africa.

You say I betrayed my ancestors grand plan? What was their grand plan exactly? They didn’t include me in any of it, so if anyone’s been betrayed, theyve betrayed me.

It’s evolutionarily advantageous to love thy neighbor, I don’t see how it’s unnatural to love thy neighbor, especially if thy neighbor is the milf sort.

Advantage is a relative term. Love thy neighbor is advantageous if you want to remain alive at all costs, disregarding the consequences, but it is disadvantageous if you want to remain alive with your brain in your head on your shoulders.

A man cannot adopt any sort of behavior that provides survival advantage without suffering certain consequences. In order for the brain to maintain its integrity, it must adapt properly, which is to say, the foreign activity it considers adopting must be integrated within its system of behavior before it can be made use of. Otherwise, the brain disintegrates.

This is what courage is all about.

Either you strive to identify, register, every single problem that you have, that pops up in your mind, manifesting as a psychological disagreement in the form of negative reaction to your actions and external stimuli, or you close your mind to the existence of your problems, sweeping them under the carpet, hoping you will be able to deal with them at a later point in time. The former requires courage, sacrificing short-term survival for long-term survival, the latter requires nothing, for it is an absence of courage, a cowardice.

Love thy neihgbor is (or was) not a thought-out behavior, it is not a product of reason, it is a product of fear, it is a product of mental reflex.

There are no laws to the universe, Fluxy, nothing is striving to survive, things are simply drawing their ultimate consequences, and they either survive or they do not. Don’t be confused by evolutionary theory . . .

And here, we are discussing values, and as I’ve explained earlier, survival does not indicate superiority per se.

What matters is whether the organism is asserting itself or denying itself. Not whether it survives or not. Survival is not the goal, it is a symptom, a consequence. Sometimes it is the strong, self-asserting, who survive, and weak, self-denying, who die. But sometimes, it is the reverse.

Advantage, then, should be understood in terms of self-assertion. Activity is said to be advantageous if it promotes self-assertion, even if it means death. Similarly, activity is said to be disadvantageous if it promotes self-denial, even if it means survival.

Domination is much more important than mere survival.

Wasnt talking about turn thy cheek, I was talking about love thy neighbor. Turn thy cheek is evolutionarily advantageous for females. Love thy neighbor is advantageous for all parties.

A highly sensitive man has a peculiar weakness: he is easily overwhelmed by emotions, which is to say, his movement is easily inhibited.

This is paralyzing, risking his short-term survival.

Though he has a choice of surviving, he chooses not to, because he values mental integrity above all else.

He remains paralyzed and refuses to continue moving until he interprets, understands, makes sense of his inhibiting negative reactions.

This necessitates courage, lest he become a vulgar man.

A highly sensitive man without courage becomes a vulgar man, a man who walks over his reactions.

The brain tells him not to, but he continues walking nonetheless.

I am often asked how this is reflected in real life. Since iambiguous is the kind of man who cannot understand anything unless you provide him with a real life example, and most of all since I want to, I will provide an example or two.

But this should be obvious . . .

A high school student refusing his “duty” is the simplest of examples.

If you sense that something is wrong, then something is wrong and you shouldn’t do it until you understand what is wrong.

A student senses that something is wrong with going to school, so he simply refuses to do it . . .

A hyper-rational parent, however, will try to force his child into a school, inventing all sorts of “reasons” as to why he should be doing it, ignoring his child’s reactions . . . this is what Satyr calls “top<>down thinking”.

If a stubborn child is unable to endure the pressure, he will start making shit up himself in order to defend himself from his forceful parents. The child himself will start using “top<>down thinking” in order to protect his “bottom<>up thinking”. For example, he will try to deny the value of schooling in general . . . A child not allowed to understand his problems will be forced into falsifying his problems . . .

No school means no job, and no job means no basic necessities of life . . .

A man who refuses to work is another example.

Most people today are desperate to find a job, even if not having a job is not risking their life. Bad conscience is enough . . . If you do not have a job you are a loser, and if you cannot endure the pressure, you will have to force yourself into any kind of job, just so that you can get rid of your bad conscience.

But for a highly sensitive man, choosing a job is as delicate as every other choice in life.

Hyper-rational people do not analyze their feelings, their reactions, their taste . . . they do not care about aesthetics . . . all they care about is putting an end to their fear, whatever the origin of this fear might be.

Unless the path has been built by his ancestors, a highly sensitive man will have to spend a lot of time choosing his job.

Unlike the vulgar man, who chooses what is most popular or where is all the money at, he always picks the job that fits his habits the best.

All of this means enduring pressure, and eventually, risking death.

Love thy neighbor is most often turn thy cheek because neighbor is too general of a category . . . it is not discriminatory enough, and so, it can easily become hypocritical.

We all die. But some die as a human, loved by others, the insensitive child dies like an animal.

For some, love thy neighbor and turn the cheek are synonymous until they’ve learned to grasp the difference through experience or through the experience of having awoken to the realization that they’ve had enough.

How is turning the cheek of an evolutionary advantage? Ever come across women (or men too for that matter) who have been abused both physically and mentally? They’ve turned the cheek because they thought that they had to, because they thought that that was what “real” love was all about.

BUT maybe you meant it in another way. In what way is turn the cheek of an evolutionarily stable advantage? unless you’re cheek kissing in France. I see none.

Why would a sensitive child thrive in a group? That’s retarded, most sensitive kids get bullied all the time and avoid groups.

iambiguous

I agree with this. It is natural.

But why do you call it rationalizing? Our perspectives and selves are not set in stone or at least ought not to be except for those which we still hold as having value and meaning for us. An honest realization is not rationalization. Rationalizing happens when we don’t feel secure in our thinking – we need to convince ourselves/justify ourselves. Then we need to take another look.

True. At one time, I did not “see” capital punishment. Some would say if you’re pro-life you cannot believe in capital punishment. But I accept both and there is no contradiction there for me. At one time there was. Our views do change because we see further and we begin to see more. It is just what it is.

Existence is messy and we don’t have all the answers. We have more questions but this doesn’t mean that for “THIS TIME” we have to question over and over again what we see especially if we understand the whys and wherefores of our new perspectives. But you don’t have to see it that way.

Give me an example that more clearly points to that for me, please, aside from this thread.

As for your first point, I can in a way see it. At the same time, at some point I have to take that giant leap and decide for myself what can be seen as objective – since for many others, it is seen in the same way. For instance – doing no deliberate harm to a child – can be logically and reasonably seen as an objective ethical value for one who is naturally sane.

As for the second, you don’t think that we still have the capacity to claim as our own our values? Does the fact that others may share them make them less our own if we’ve come to them honestly and do indeed live by them? We may be a part of the whole but separate individuals at the same time. I know that’s simplifying it. I think that when you use terms like “wholly” you’re dealing more in absolutes…where there are none.

But my view above gives us more breathing room. I think that you thoroughly enjoy living in negative capability. Nothing wrong with that. Questions can be more exhilarating then solutions. They keep us open to more possibilities. Have you ever stopped to consider though that there may be a much deeper underlying reason for this in you. We all them you know. I certainly do.

I don’t go along with the premise that might makes right nor that all arguments are or have to be rooted in Reason and Virtue and Nobility. What is virtue and what is nobility? They may also be rooted in what we subjectively see as moral so they’re capable of error. Everything though is capable of error since we can’t see or know everything as it really is.

So what’s the answer to our dilemma?

Now that can be considered as so much rationalization and even narcissism. Even the Pharisees saw things in that way standing in the corner whispering to self. “I am just and righteous. My thinking is flawless.” …says the pharisees.

Lol Oh poor Freddie. But was it really a “will to power” which Freddie exhorted or more so like Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, that inner strength which is a will of a kind toward struggling and becoming?
But let’s not go and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I read more than a few of his books and they are so full of intelligence and wisdom and poetic beauty. You can’t only see his life in terms of what you say above. His will to power was ALSO the determination to achieve through struggle and transcendence what his life did achieve. Depending on our personal psychology, we all see power differently.

Now I know Tricksie that you are not speaking to me here with reference to what I wrote above - not to Iambiguous - but to you. I would give you credit for more intelligence and reading comprehension than that.
Carry on.

Wasn’t talking to you but
I guess you are from the planet Mo-ron where you believe sensitive kids lead happy lives and have large circles of friends. I suppose your next step is to say the sky is red and autistic people don’t keep to themselves.

This is exactly the definition of sensitive. People who are capable of making good friends, living and contributing to the community and gaining the love and respect of others, have to have emotional sensitivity.
That fact that you cannot see that speaks volumes about the fact the you are failing as a human being.