Against Artificial Anarchy---Purify Philosophy for Posterity

Or: Masturbation v.s. Philosophy - how Eros is drained from philosophy by anarchy.

The difference between productive thought and self-gratification is being obscured by attempts at presenting nihilism as a workable concept where it is none - it is only the state of clearing the mind from overripe values to make space for fresh ones.

The clearing of the ground needs to be done in the private life, because values have to be built by a subject, from the building stones of experience. This experience is more likely than not often ugly, and it can be therapeutic to present this as comedy or reality-tv, but philosophy is not passive entertainment, it doesn’t behave catabolically even if it may spiritualize the catabolic forces.

Power is in thought, ideation, creation of tools, housing and weaponry, transportation and means to increase the wealth of experience. It enables a liberation from conditioning, albeit a conditioned one - the condition being the structure of the mind. I believe that in our western logic (which is far more different from oriental logic than we ar eled to believe by the God created all men equally tag) philosophy operatest between Kant and Nietzsche, and that we cannot go beyond these two. I think that they covered the two extremes. An example: Deleuze’s concept of a body without organs in a thousand plateau’s is a representation of a-priori synthetic judgments in terms of the Pandoras box of pagan imagery Nietzsche bled into ideation.

His German offspring Heidegger departs from the presocratic flux conception but quickly places it in archetypes; his illuminated idea of physis, a perpetual coming into being as a ruling, a Nietzschean concept born of his time-studies, did not prevent him from seeking a thingness into being. In the end he surrendered to the Thing in itself, but placed it into the Earth: a remarkable move. I refer here of course to his Bridge, and the almost agricultural vocabulary that this inspired in his later work.

In terms of all this groundwork, it is important to understand that we can move forward - that there is a great field of potential opened up, a science of the mind is possible. All that has been expressed here in the recent weeks about the lack of objective interpretation has been covered extensively. What this has led to is a vague understanding of what then this interpreting - which to all who are alive reading this exists beyond question - is to be understood as.

We have a few terms to go by: meaning, value, truth. We understand now that these are conditioned by our biology, which is how we interpret “the truth” now. Biology is our system of truth-currency. In other words, we approach life as if from outside. Experience is seen as a symptom - where philosophically it must be the ground.

With this setup to a philosophy of the mind I hope to inspire some commitment to the cause of thought, which I have always seen as the most attractive one - even more so than the myriads of scantily clad lovelies parading around this beautiful city all day… well most of the time. But sex is short lived pleasure, a relatively easy way to attain a state of satisfaction. It seems that the idea that philosophy must and can fulfill higher, greater desires is lost somewhat, in the overpowering suggestion of the momentary satisfaction that comes with brutalizing objects of beauty.

Can’t wait to dissect this. Anybody else want the honors of doing it first before me?

I think you are correct in so far that there is a tendency to focus on things not being objective and thus there an be nothing done…
Although i might say that saying it is conditioned by our biology is pointing at only one domino in the line…Is not biology effected by the environment, the habitat, both social and of other things, it would seem then to loop to a degree that might be quite hard to interpolate.

“But sex is short lived pleasure, a relatively easy way to attain a state of satisfaction.” i find it a silly thing unless for procreation…

It would seem that many realize that we are driven by certain instincts but consider to simply succumb to them rather than do as what lead away from barbarism and civilize by means of overcoming what is wasteful, and otherwise un-beneficial (not just talking about sex). people like the idea that it is “just instinct, just genetics” because that gives for some reason the excuse to not have to change, thinking change is hard rather than change is beneficial. Much of this stems from the idea that genetics is of ‘random mutation’ that cannot be effected, when in reality it can be by alteration in habits of all forms, eating, social, interaction with environment, all those things that themselves are aspects of the environment we live in, so as to allow us to grow past those genetics that are not beneficial. Then there is the post Nazi scare that lends many to thinking that it is dangerous to consider working past their genetic inhibition and that many might use such to control things or lead to bad situations. When we can see from marketing and advertising and what not that such is already being used inappropriately wherein it is then evident that rather than avoiding the thing we need to all learn about it, rather than a select few, so that there is less susceptibility to inappropriate and unacceptable control. Rather then any single entity manipulating the environment and conditioning the people, it should be by knowledge by the whole that the whole is lead, and of course thus there should be freedom to choice of overcoming our genetics (long term generationaly passed down environmental conditioning)…

What is workable? Change in what?

Greater desires of what?

For me the bottom line is that it’s really not much more than speculation, the percentages of influence. And we don’t know what else may be of influence. Look at my thread on atrology in the Rant house for more on my position on that - If you’d be interested - :slight_smile:

The only thing we can be certain of is out position, our conscious perspective. So, let’s put that as the axiom.
But that demands of us that we have a conscious perspective, which is a lot of effort to have - so many people like to believe in God or genetics-as-God.

Easy duz it!

Yes, not that sex is not beneficial - but it’s not always the most emotionally or intellectually lucrative way to channel passion. Sexual energy is basically just ‘a lot of energy’. You can accomplish a lot with it, if you manage to contain yourself.

So you would propose a philosophy based on genetics ? that’s interesting idea. I’ll keep that in mind.

Aren’t you the unemployed guy who is always complaining about how fucked up the world is?
I assume you can imagine a couple of meanings for “workable” and “change”.

Greater objects of desire than petty rape and orgies in malls -
But if you need to have some sex before you can imagine anything beyond that, that’s understandable.

I wish you the best of luck on your travels.

I’ll take a look

:smiley: I believe in God… That doesn’t mean I’m a bible-thumping-do-nothing-because-God-will-fix-it person though…But then if a “bible-thumper” thump the bible at me when being insane, I’ll thump right back. For example in Exodus I can’t see where now sense I am at work but around chapter 20 I think after the commandments or rather during the long rediuculous more then just 10 commandments, Moses says God says, basically that you shall not subject the poor to usury…hmmm…aparently people don’t think they have to submit to the hard ones…anyways…

I tend to think that while sex can be good in so far as physical alterations that are basically like unto severe messages, and can help all sorts of things, I think that alot of that can be done without stick the wood in the hole, or squirting the mojo, and unfortunately the extent of sex as pervacent now seems to be diluting love itself.

I would think that much of what is in religons of past are of the nature of conditioning. Even prayer like meditation is a form of conditioning a ode of thought in association with a physical form that then by later association contributes to comfort and further ease of thinking in that form. There are many other such things. For a long time we have known practice makes perfect it would seem we even believed in the passing of things through blood, it would seem though that for some reason we have yet to correlate that of conditioning and how it can be passed down not only through social alterations but through the blood itself…