What does my avatar say about me?
What does your avatar say about you?
I have a similar picture of myself, my shadow on the salt-beach of the dead sea. It quite simply says to me: confrontation with the shadow self. That means the part that does things that have consequences that (used to) lie in the dark.
My avatar tells you what I think of my philosophy (my self) with respect to where I am.
Mine perfectly describes everything known about me.
It seems almost obvious that your new avatar and your eye’s one portray a specific desire not to be exposed.
FC is largely right about my new avatar.
Stuart is right about my old avatar.
My new avatar represents me attempting to integrate guilt ridden, shameful components of my psyche into the whole of my psyche, or even for them to takeover, or at least it could be meaningfully interpreted that way. The initial meaning it had for me was an impersonal, societal manifestation of such a process.
James, I have no idea who you are, you could be serial killer for all I know, but on multiple occasions, you’ve hinted to me that you were working for the government at some point, that you had access to top secret information because they thought they could trust you, but you defected, and now you’re doing everything, or some things in your power to combat them, without risking your head. Perhaps you were a scientist, or a government agent of some sort.
Stuart’s avatar tells me more about how he sees things than about how he sees himself… directly, that is. He perceives things as hazy, murky. He may be a relativist or a subjectivist. He may be searching for clarity, unable to find any. Or, perhaps he prefers not finding any, perhaps that gives him comfort, because if it were A or B, then it could be positive or negative, and he prefers not to take risks. It tells me he’s aware of flux, how nothing is, only seems, that everything is impermanent, and thus, illusory in many senses. The jungle is also a shadowy, murky place, where everything blends together and everything is one, as opposed to the open field, where everything stands alone and apart.
Of course I could be wrong.
On the other hand, the red in your avatar stands out for me.
Then there was the puma in the other one.
The obsession with Satyr…
When you’re speaking of one who got to know the work of a quality author who was still alive, but well into his decline, especially when his way of describing reality is what he had long searched for, it shouldn’t surprise you that there should appear some degree of obsession, like a zoologist trying to study the last dingo.
The leopard was generally asleep, it awoke, and for a short time was exposed, then it withdrew into the foliage, to wait.
I’ll temporarily leave my cover.
What do we have here… paw prints?
Then there was God, “Contra Nietzsche”, Joker…
Who’s being studied, you, or them?
I see a schizophrenic mind desperately in need of guidance, wisdom… and perhaps more.
When he couldn’t find it in the flesh, he turned to the spirit, when he couldn’t find it in the spirit, he turned to the flesh.
Is that blood in your avatar, or is that just my imagination?
Why a medium sized cat, why not a lion, tiger or wolf, hell why not a penguin?
Does the pupil slay the master, or the squire the knight after he’s satiated?
A way of recovering what was temporarily lost?
Or are they holding out on you?
Hmmm, your avatar seems blurrier than before, or, perhaps I’m hallucinating.
Firstly, you failed to mention Sartre after god. I probably had only read one tenth the amount of CN’s work as Satyr’s and less than one hundredth of that of Sartre’s. I don’t know why Joker’s on that list.
More? You mean like electroshock therapy?
How observant, and so? You by the way went from supposedly having a basis in naturalistic philosophy to taking to sickly nihilism. I don’t see that as a very expedient transition, but who knows.
You probably see blood running down your nose.
It’s natural to want to at times, but in the long run he probably ends up ignoring him.
Once I recovered something that I lost and had never found since.
Speaking to Satyr, CN, and a few others whose work I learned of through ILP; it seems so at first, but I after studying their weaknesses more I find that they likely aren’t/weren’t capable of giving much more.
You’ll have to excuse me, I think Smears put something in my drink.
My advice to you is - don’t be so hard on yourself. Those totally engrossed with us, them, abstractions and others are cowardly hypocrites. Philosophy begins and ends with me, myself and I. Everything is known and valued by individuals. Collective knowledge and wisdom are secondary. Cognition is and ought to be an active process, scanning for what’s meaningful, purposeful and relevant to self.
You can take that for what it’s worth or you can leave it.
Maybe you should only drink clear water.
Your advice is good, but you’ve given better.
I found out that Stuart is an actual existentialist, but in the literary sense. His list is one of people he suspects have interesting lives, lives that contain experiences he has a desire and taste for. It’s not so much philosophy as it is indeed, Sartrianism. Sartre is a novelist, lest we forget.
I can not blame Stuart for trying to forge some kind of existential context out of a few posters here. The world is very empty of cultured life and our philosophy forums are oases.
Literature generally is related to human interactions, human interactions is generally related to choices. A writer who understands Sartrean freedom needs not write characters who understand it, but in his narrative, he will have a decent basis for speaking of the faith his character’s choices were made in.
One often projects his life into the future as if it were a story which the author already has outlined. Furthermore, it’s of no use to be fooled by historical obfuscation on what freedom and choosing is. Therefore, I believe I was correct in my intuition years ago that this was the place to start before seriously going elsewhere in philosophy.
We all have our pluses and minuses, you shouldn’t build up people in your head like that, then you won’t feel the need to tear them down later on, when you can’t live up to your projections or theirs. The overman is a myth, just as God is. Yes we can improve ourselves, yes we can better ourselves, but everyone suffers, everyone. We need all kinds of people in the world, not just one. We need intps and esfjs (see myers briggs). I prefer my own kind, but where’s the proof one is superior to another, in any absolute, objective sense, or even in a relative 1? Everyone suffers from addictions, whether they be psychological or somatic. Even wanting to be balanced and addiction free can be its own addiction. Let’s keep it real. I see a lot of idealism on these boards, left, right, everything in between and outside. The overman, God in the flesh, is an idol, like any other. Perhaps it’s something for some of us to orient ourselves to, but by no means a reality. Spend all day talking about them, them, them… see how far it gets you.
It’s the easiest thing to do in the world - them, they, those…
Society couldn’t exist if we all had the same disposition, temperament, hobbies and interests, we need people like that to do this, and people like this to do that, and of course everyone is engrossed with self, and selfinterested.
There’s relative proof of many things. You used to know that. But, don’t worry about my expectations. You’ve never been as high as some in that regard and you have now dropped to the level of someone such as Purple Dragon. I rarely abandon hope, but I regularly lose interest. Though, like I said, I’m usually very bored, so I’m likely to continue to speak to you while you deal with these issues.
What you really need to do is start reading and contributing to Iambiguous’ threads. He’s uncompromisingly nihilistic, in most regards. If you make a serious effort to learn from him, I would give you four months before you had enough.
My avatar is one of a number that my brother helped me prepare for use on profiles etc. I particularly like this one because I took it myself, in front of a mirror. As I’ve said before, this is the uniform of the leisure centre where our old people’s fitness club meets.
Mine? Take a wild guess. 
Maybe I don’t know enough not to say this, but in in context it can’t refer to anyone otherwise than Vladimir Nabokov; that you invert it is doubtlessly a significant statement on the inverse nature of his work.