Debating The Old Goat

Very little.

Yes, I would be. I see such an existence as the most natural one and of the highest nihilistic aspiration.

You must also understand that my interpretations of nature is one of nihilism. For me nature and the universe is naturally nihilistic. The natural order separate from human beings is a nihilistic one.

I see humanity eventually returning back to this order of things. It is my greatest desire, aspiration, and longing.

Yes, it would however I’ll settle for a post-apocalyptic society of guns also under similar environmental circumstances and living.

Wrong? No, not really.

The conflict however with people wanting more is that they want more autonomy from everybody else to achieve their ends and as time progresses all autonomy gets entirely stripped away until very little is left or none at all.

That’s exactly what it is. It all verily does become sacrificed. Sacrificed in the name of higher ideals.

I on the other hand am not attached whatsoever.

It’s more than that however as I alluded to earlier in that my philosophy nature and the universe is naturally nihilistic.

For me humanity’s constant struggle is between it’s natural nihilistic self versus the ideals it constructs in trying to deny or shed its own nihilism. The reason why civilizations, empires, and social orders collapse is because inevitably their higher ideals succumb to this natural nihilism of human nature or the universe. You can only deny nature for so long until it wins.

So when I see people like Satyr in their lofty ideals I observe people trying to shed or deny their natural nihilistic selves.

Yes, I am willing to throw it all away. For me nature and the universe is naturally nihilistic along with being chaotic.

It is that primordial or original chaos and nihilism I want to see rekindled.

For this to happen the delusions, ideals, and attachments of civilization must collapse or be destroyed.

It cares not.

Luxuries and conveniences that can be done away with. Overtime, inevitably will be done away with.

That is because of both your attachments.

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

Of course I would be.

Satyr is an aristocrat of a controlled atmosphere within his aristocracy and ideals of higher nobility concerning concentrated power.

I am a barbarian of an uncontrollable atmosphere where what little control that exists is very limited to which in the absence of ideals savagery prevails in decentralized unconcentrated power.

See the difference?

I just view them with utter contempt.

Hopefully this reply clarifies some things.

Yeah, pretty much speaking in simplistic terms.

What’s that old adage? Something about defiance being the first path to independence.

Freud was just another institutional objectivist.

I’ve been trying to refine my philosophy, writing, and views as of late. I hope you have taken notice of that.

‘highest?’ What would be the lowest?

I realized after writing my post that by culture it might have seemed I meant things like Opera, Classical Music, computers…and while sure, I inlude those in culture, things like having a band, playing football/soccer, and all sorts of folk arts and activities are nearly impossible in a post-collapse chaos.

As far as it being the highest nihilist. It is simply one form of nihilism. One can be a moral nihilist and skeptical (even postmodern) about culture, but still have many parts of culture that one enjoys. It is not a necessary component of nihilism to want to live as a feral primate.

For any individual it can be at any moment. There are certainly countries you could go to. Head down to Mexico instead of up to Alaska - though in the latter you can head out in nature like Chris McCandless did. There is no need to yearn for apocalype. There are places and ways of being in places where it is already feral.

I see no advantages for you in collapse if you really want to be feral. After collapse groups will form and likely have military aspects. The military is feral in some ways but hardly free. Either you will be below the top or on the top. In either case you will be following rules or enforcing rules. Either way you are on one end of a leash.

Then you would see a gorilla living in the wild as having the fulfilling life you want. You do not need the extra possibilities the homo sapien brain offers over the gorilla.
I on the other hand am not attached whatsoever.

But then you seem to view culture as a whole as unnatural. You have your particular desire for a very simple existence, fine, probably places in BC with some woodcraft you could start tomorrow after a hitch. I mean right now. But you seem to need the entire world to come down, which means you think everyone should be in this simplified culture absent place and if they do not want this they are being unnatural. If they want to enjoy the possibilities offered by their more than merely mammalian brain, for example. That they want to use their FULL nature you see as unnantural.

On this point I am with Satyr. You are cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Your choice. To me it seems you have intelligence and abilities that will never be challenged in the post-apocalypse feral life you dream of. You seem much, much more than a primate and will not be able to have the full range of joys, self-expression and fulfillment there. The no has been taken too far.

But that is not for me to decide for you, obviously.

But it seem implicit that you judge anyone who wants more than a feral life to be unnanatural and that is confused.

I am a part of the universe. It is in my nature to be more than just another primate in the woods. For me you are functioning on a false dilemma. Either one honors one’s nature OR one has culture. I see no need to deny nature. The feral is there and there is more. You see anything beyond survival, eating, etc. as denial.

That does not fit my world. In fact it seems like a denial of nature. Imagine one of the early mammals saying that it would be better if they lacked the social parts of their brains and were more like reptiles. And the reptiles decided the insects had the real, primal, correct feral nature. And so on back.

The fact is that nature is evolving and our natures, including yours, cannot be fully utilized in anarchic decultured pseudo neolithic returns. There you will only be able to use some of your nature.

This does not make the aristocrat right, let alone Satyr’s version of this. I see him also as denying portions of what is fully human. In a sense not as much as modern society does, but the result of his philosophy coming into power is ugly nevertheless, just as his forum,which should exhibit some re-renaissance is either copy pasting sycophants or little half baked thug philosophers. Not the Platonic form to build a society around.

But I will leave you to the debate with S.

The lowest? Well, I would say the current society we live in is pretty low enough however the goals for the future concerning civilization’s endgame creating a technological prison planet for me is the lowest where all autonomy is virtually gone. We’re well on our way now in present time to that reality.

I enjoy many things of culture. Don’t misinterpret me on that part, it’s just that I don’t think any of it is necessary for our survival.

You’ll notice that while I stated our ancient past of living wild and feral is coinciding with nihilism I didn’t say there was any tenable way of going back to such an existence. The last three thousand years of civilization has made that untenable.

No, in the future a new kind of feral and wild existence will come to exist where it will be born out of the ruins of civilization.

It will however coincide with the nihilism of nature and universe especially with the disintegration of all delusions that has grown inside of civilization once it collapses. The complete utter and total disintegration of all civilization.

A sort of wild and feral existence out of the ruins of civilization but with the industrial leftover instruments of guns.

Points above. I disagree, there very much are reasons for yearning the burning desire of civilization’s collapse.

You think remnants of the military are the only individuals capable of organizing themselves in civilization’s departure.

This is entirely incorrect and an arrogant position where I speak of such having some military background myself.

I’ve also said in the past that there are rules and hierarchies within anarchism. They just differ quite significantly from those of centralized government societies a lot more.

Me on a leash? Too funny.

Yes, a gorilla like all other animal species live in sync with the natural nihilism of nature all around them.

Human beings are the only species that exist out this sync and ever since the emergence of civilization we’ve paid a hefty price to do so.

Of course a gorilla is a different animal species where its lifestyle or existence does not contain the same conditions as homosapiens natural feral and wild existence obviously would.

For me culture and civilization was born out of religion in origin by various forms of cultism.

Whether or not it is natural is irrelevant. The birth and current trajectory of civilization exists soley on illusion, mass delusion, or hysteria.

Like all delusions imposed reality eventually catches up with it. :smiley:

I’ve already discussed this above.

It doesn’t really matter what I think or not. This civilization that you hold in high regard is collapsing in numerous ways whether you want to admit it or not. It’s inevitable.

That’s where you’re incorrect. Challenges would very much exist.

This has already been touched upon.

No, just living in a perpetual constructed fantasy world that I’ve come to despise, hate, and loathe.

Is it? How very interesting.

The seeds of culture’s destruction was planted inside itself a long time ago.

We obviously look at nature quite differently.

Evolving into what?

Fully utilized?

Is this the best you can do Satyr old chap? That’s some fancy grand standing and posturing you have there.

What a display!

Is somebody feeling a bit butt hurt? Awww, somebody must be crawling deep under your skin…

By the way, I’ve only just begun and have got started in crawling under your skin. :smiley:

I’m not done yet.

Like I’ve always said, the KT crowd is a bunch of philosophical objectivists but unlike the transhumanist objectivists and universalists that pervade modern academia all across the world they’re trying to create a new kind of objectivism that is quite different in being its polar opposite. They believe themselves to be revolutionaries in this regard. Objectivist rebels that in their grandest irony make fun of me for being a nihilistic rebel. Quite comical really.

Now, what is the objectivism of Satyr?

Let’s just call it, Neo Spartan Aristocratic Objective Idealism. Truly pathetic and yet comical at the same time.

These so called rebels of the noble spirit and ethos. :laughing:

Objectivists trying to idealize the world and the universe through objectification. Objectified Idealism even. :laughing: Truly hilarious.

Who cannot laugh and gloat at the old man’s psycho babble or mental masturbation in objectivist form? :laughing:

So if someone decides its a good idea to kill all the doctors and blow up all the hospitals, and cut down all the forests, and blow up all the internet service providers, our quality of life is objectively better. Great.

Brilliant! I am kidding of course.

Honestly, reading Ec’s latest prose gave me a brain fart from laughing too much and I kinda forgot what I had set out to do.

In any case, he kind of doesn’t have the heirachy ordered right. Bonobos aren’t neccesarily less warish because of lack of stratification, but perhaps their underlying mental state is responsible for both lack of stratification, and lack of war.

Or maybe there’s a hundred thousand species out there that are as non-‘warlike’ as the bonobo, and there isn’t any connection whatsoever because applying such a contrived concept as ‘nonwarlikeness’ onto monkeys and seahorses is just dumb in the first place.

I think sometimes that Ecmandu just decides that the first idea that pops into his head at any given moment must be the absolute truth. Hell, did you see where he declared that all conservatives the world over are loyal to the Pope, and that the Pope supports censorship because he doesn’t have an email address? This guy is just having random thoughts, then being compelled by whatever his condition is to defend them, even if they are nonsense or if they contradict his thought from the day before.

You better not be.
And you better improve the quality too or people will stop reading you even if you keep it short.
Go on.

Sorry Ucc but you’re wrong this time. Chimps and primates form hunting parties and tribes and battle against other tribes. It is very much described as warlike.

Here’s the deal Trixie, you thought it was funny, but suicide protects us from dictators!!!

Imagine a creator…

“I’m going to create new people, and if they have a way out, I might not have friends, I plan to torture them mercilessly until the get Stockholm syndrome or burn in hell forever”

What the fuck is that ???

Same with parents of a child…

To laugh at it, is to get Stockholm syndrome!

Lions do all sorts of things, they kick members from the pride and eat young not of their own…

Since we are discussing lions…

pfft whatever kriswest… I’ve read about 2000 papers in multidisciplinary studies on this topic, not including books.

You seem to have not read the post that you’re saying is wrong. No doubt a few species of animals do war-like things. The ones most like us, makes sense. Ants come to mind. But to evaluate the animal kingdom as a whole as to what species are the most ‘non-warlike’ is fucking stupid. Why is a bonobo less warlike than an oyster? What about all those creatures that live solitary lives, avoiding others of their species? “Is this creature warlike” is a question that isn’t going to apply to 95% of the animal kingdom, so to point to one creature and say ‘this is the one that’s least warlike’ is just stupid.

Well Uccisore, grass and oysters both commit homicide with overcrowding …

I think you haven’t studied this enough…

And then come off as if you had .

Satyr, the man who points to the one and only true path of human objectivity.

He is the light in the darkness and the objective messianic savior of us all. The great objective mystic that in his glory has shed light on the universal mysteries of reality for us all. He alone has learned the secrets of the universe.

Satyr, the law-giver. Bow and grovel at his feet. If he bends over, does not the devout acolyte kiss his ass? :stuck_out_tongue:

You know I hate that and see the forces setting that up as well. That doesn’t make what you called highest, high at all.

I agree. It seems you think that the only way to survive is to not have much culture, ever, in any form. That we can be apex primates, but basically live like other primates.

How will the collapse have changed people so that they make a society you like rather than what has gone before?

Why will the collapse teach people this? Other collapses of civilizations did not teach people this?

That’s not the point. YOu could be there now. Right now you are yearning, but in fact you could head into the woods right now AND yearn for the end of civilization. There are people out there right now living in many ways as one would after collapse. You have to be far away from most humans, but if you are heading to Alaska, not by air, you will be going through land like that.

No, I don’t see them as the only ones, they will be very effective ones. But there will be all sorts of groups. However those groups will organize around leaders and make rules and the ones that work with consensus will frustrate the hell out of someone wiht your personality. So you will be in a group, as leader or as follower or as equal and all these groups will have rules, more as time goes on. There will be enforcement, control…

You write like a religious person waiting for the rapture. Suddenly things will be different. Yes, chaos, but human nature will not undergo some miraculous change. People will again want security, will follow leaders, will want structure, will try to recreate functioning machines and so on.

Where does the miraculous change in human nature come from?

It is as if you think most people will become anarchist nihilists. This is not what has happened historically after collapses: religions, reorganization similar to former lines, control, rules all resurrect.

So what will your life have that the gorillas life does not. Because before this you seem to have said, very clearly and a few times, that you yearn for a survival based, animal like feral life.

It is not an illusion that we take pleasure in and grow through and exhibit our brains’ full capacities through all sorts of cultural processes that need not be tied to religions. All sorts of arts, crafts, building and creation. Our brains will have much less challenges in your dream life.

Seriously, this was stupid. I do not hold this civilization in high regard. I hate modern society. I do not see the options as being a gorilla and 1984.

I also see nothing at all but religious faith on your part that post apocalypse will suddenly have cleansed humanity of all of what you call delusions and they will form your version of utopia.

Not for the full range of our capabilities.

I am not in a fantasy world. You are just reacting to X person. I loathe this society also. Guilt is God. Control is God. And I do see the trends quite clearly.

I ALSO SEE YOUR FANTASY: that a collapse will somehow change human nature. Humans will set about recreating this society, because that is what they know and because they will not have learned via disaster.

No answer, then.

The seeds of culture’s destruction was planted inside itself a long time ago.

You see humans as very effective monkeys. I see them as already having demonstrated unbelievable potentials no monkey has shown. You yearn for a life where only a part of what our nature is capable of. That is a denial of our nature.

You seem only to be able to hear this as meaning, Moreno likes civilization. 1) whatever I like or do not like is irrevelent to the issue of whether you are denying a part of what it is to be human, which you are and 2) I can hate this civilization, but see clearly at the same time that you are faith based. Things will be different in human relations after collapse. But humans will be the same, unless you can say why this time, unlike all other times, humans will give up on setting up the very structures you hate.

I could see you simply hating society and wishing for it to be destroyed. But you go beyond this. YOu see a utopia, a harsh one,b ut that’s how your utopia would be.

This is fantasy.

You are down on religions because they talk about things that cannot be sensed, you KNOW, even though you cannot sense it and cannot know it, that things will be good in the aftermath. And this makes you a priest.

Notice your urge to write: me, a priest, hardly.

But that is not a response, it is posturing.

A response would be to either admit that you merely hope it will work out like that or a response would be to show what your faith is based on. Why it MUST TURN OUT THAT WAY.

I don’t give a shit about Satyr. So many lives raping the servant boys - gently, kindly, and buying them presents when the wife isn’t looking. So many lives breaking people down so they stay down and calling it pedagogy and the creation of excellence.

You on the other hand have had the shit end of the stick going right back to the beginning.

When the collapse comes it is much better that you face your uncertainty now or it is much more likely to smack you down again.

Satyr’s laws include the correctness of certainty as posture. To shame away doubts or resistance. To consider strength something officially rigid.

Motherfuckers have ruined so much.

You may be a rebel, but you are taking daddy’s axioms into the maelstorm.

I meant, that we are not monkeys. Yes, society denies how much we are like them. However you seem to want to deny how different. Everybody wants to cut shit out. When I disagree with you, you think I want to cut out the monkey or deny it. No, I just see you denying parts of yourself

Good catch. Expressed, realized, enjoyed…

In any case, the very people who have the most power now are also rooting for collapse, since they expect to have more control of what little is left after. Your hatred of middle class complacency and denial makes you laugh at the same shit as the people who most would see you in a box.

Rousseauism is no solution. There is no need to civilly go back to nature. Nature dominates anyway.

How do you imagine things getting to the better with or without collapse?
What does it look like?

It is a cyclical process. Catastrophes come again and again. We do not need to make any contribution to catastrophes. But we do. It would be better to relinquish any contribution to catatstrophes or to decisions which lead to catatstrophes, if we were more capable of relinquishing. We should stop changing the world and start protecting the world.

A better world would be a protected world, especially for the offspring. But it is very likely that the human rulers and some other humans will not stop changing the world (thus: destroying the world) and will get the worst world. So the next human-made catastrophe will come sooner as expected.

We should eliminate or at least replace the globalistic institutions, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world, and also eliminate or at least replace the globalistic “human rights”, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world. We have to protect the world; we have to protect our chidren and their children and so on; we have to protect our countries; we have to protect the right of domicile (I mean it as the exact opposite of the right we now have: the right to settle wherever one wants to); we have to protect ourselves by protecting our nation, our origin, our traditions … and so on. We need rights to protect ourselves in the sense that these rights can successfully stop protecting the rights of the globalists.

When a forest becomes too large and expansive it eventually catches fire as a part of the natural equilibrium with its environment. From this fire out of the ashes of the old forest a new one is born. New life emerges in renewal after destruction. It’s a part of a much larger cycle of things. Creation, destruction, creation, destruction…