Base Desires

I figure both humans and animals build their life around their base desires and instincts.
The conscious, willful, premeditated aspect of life is not a large portion of it.
Beings live on impulse. If I were to strip away my own lower desires and natures, I’d have very little left over, and I am trying to maximize my willful and logical intentions/ideas. The problem with it is in places like where you try to be a true friend or make a true friend. Ya mostly know that is difficult.

Not if You begin to see how things really are. Where A=-A=A; or where the hermeanutic circle is fueled by the inclusion of desire within the circle. If You try to out it, You fail. If You accept it, You fail. And that is the quantum of desire, for the worth of your
friendship, for higher purposes. The indiscernibles of the deconstruction of desire, if not intentional :smiley:errida contra Husserl. The absolute reduction is the

A=A, or absolute desire , of narcissism, which is the start toward the compassion of others, including those who are receptive toward ‘real’ love,
deservingly so, where A=-A, the desire of opposites.

Incidentally, this is corruptively similar to why Socrates had to take Hemlock. Political correctness ruled out ontological sensibility.

Derrida contra Husserl. Satyr, do You ever get out of KTS?

The root of a plant is much more sensible than the root of human desires.
I’d expect to find something more important supporting other importance.
Instead I think I am finding primitive next-to-nothings.

But as a plant tries to grow and mature, seeking light and nourishment, so is it’s desire to find understanding and friendship, not in it’s base(ic) post modern approbation, but using the structure of it’s soil as a foundation.

Add or take away one chemical or molecule and you have a new substance.

I think consciousness and desire is like that. It can be a dead lump, then add to it, the right thing, it becomes the definition of will or consciousness.

That’s alchemy, and let’s not discount it, although, it’s rarely available on open shelves, nowadays. It is as rare as can be, it’s;like trying to square a circle. However, to those who seek, it is there for the taking. For those who do not find it, it’s an agonizing

search. I really believe there is an element of luck here, but luck is deceptively too simple, it is really much much more than a coincidence. Perhaps it is a

state best desribed as pre-determined. Where that
leaves the will as an intentional agent leaves another
loose end. Leaving only one real solution, a
transcendence.

That would probably entail the business of comparing. Thought would tell you that there is something wrong with the present life and begin to make comparisons between the present state of affairs and some other better situation in the past that triggered the sense of uneasiness in the first place. What else would be behind the cause of restlessness now if not certain knowledge extracted from past pleasures and pains? Thought tries to convince you that you have to use something, in this case an idea, to get results needed. It’s the effort that makes you think you are getting somewhere. But what is it you want? That has to be clear. Perhaps the goal is ill proposed. Aside from the comparisons that thought makes, is there really a problem with your life especially when your present life is your only life?

Thus… what should you try to do in such a situation? Nothing in the world need help you, there’s nothing to depend on when clarity is there. As long as there is dependence on any authority outside of you, you remain hopeless. Once you understand this clearly, there is no more helplessness, your helplessness no longer exists. Then you actually don’t know what to do. This is the situation where you have to arrive, no longer knowing what to do. And, if you expect that something will happen from what you then call your ‘clarity of thinking’, or your ‘meditation’ or something similar, then you are lost forever.

… the ontology of self-annihilation.

ALL life is guided by the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT.

When one loses any conscious perception of hope, one cannot make decisions other than to run (the feminine). When one loses any perception of threat, one cannot make any decisions other than to follow impulse desires (the feminine).

To do otherwise and have hope, one must masculinize. That is accomplished by clarifying and verifying (thus gaining confidence and strength) the hopes and threats toward a harmony of behavior. And from that, all true “friends” are found and true hope is achieved because the “base desires” very soon adjust to the anewed confidence.

Or, the deconstruction of the self for higher

purposes.
This is in line with what Marcus Aurelius said, ‘An
untested virtue is without merit’. Incidentally James, to really know, is to have been able to cross, the river, styx, and answer the questions asked by the half man half beast, without the proper answer you fall into thr abyss. Prometheus journey into the underground was a similar idiom, to really know, one has to overcome the jalf of the answer, that is the rational one. One has to be bound for eons, like Prometheus, by not reaaly be able to be there, and really know what for the redemption was geared toward. Or to whom, toward.

Remeber the Academy? It was very short loved here at ILP, and it’s introcuction via Rousseau’s travails before the French Academy. Gadamer reflected on this at length, and i have written extensively on Narcissus’ travails vis. others. The vast modern opinion on Narcissism and the complex surrounding it, is, that it may yet devolve the meaning of it into the myth, the myth alone is still accessible with the remains of the eidectic reduction, there are still left elements of substantive remainer, to remind of the fallacy of the mirrors.

Your A=A, is still relevant here, despite the loss of meaning through the reduction, (Derrida) and itis not until allmof it has been exhaustively analyzed, (as in my case), that the -A is introduced. In this case, it is a conjunction, a satisfactory synthesis, betweem the will,as understanding, and representation, -as a funcion of experience. The -A, in between the tautological A=A, is the assertion of the development of the synthetic negation, over and above the pantheistic identity. It is a step foreward into
constructing a new logical consistency into the realm of the ‘should’ ; the compelling reason why, new frontiers of consciousness should arise, within that reconstruction. It is not for abstract apology, as in the case of Rousseau, and not even thoughts on Divine retribution, but purely on aesthetic grounds, of making a leap, from the terror of the closure of the hermeanutic circle, (again)into the idea, of being rescued by the Hero. The Hero here, is the divine-erotic genius, the ascent of whom precludes anything but limitless altruism. If this is tested, it has to be admitted, that this idea is time tgested, as not having any idea of a unified A=A sort. The identity is purpusefully negated, as in Nietzche, from a completely altruistic motive. Nietzche was so utterly misunderstood, that the poor fellow needed to be understood in some future time by very select individuals, premising on the idea that the written word is immortal. (Ecce Homo/ why i write such wonderful books, etc)