Deciphering Herd Jargon

What follows is a list of terms that have been appropriated and corrupted to satisfy the survival and reproductive needs of the particular variant of nihilism currently dominating the west, and through the west’s influence, affecting all humanity – let’s call it the victim variant of Judeo-Puritanism, dominating via Americanism; a variant that is currently raging (* circa 2020 *) within the ex-British Empire, American dominated Anglo-sphere, and its worldwide dominion.

A few examples:

God = collective humanity. God’s will = unblemished omnipotent oneness of mankind, i.e., divine will.

Nazi = the newest name of Satan, popularized by the current liberal, postmodern, Americanized herd of victims. It is their updated name for the anti-Christ, or anti-Messiah; it is how they’ve baptized ‘evil,’ in a post-Nietzsche era.
Nazi = evil, identifying an anti-herd pack member.
God of Abraham was originally a term used to represent all those Semites that adopted nihilism as their survival strategy. It represents their collective.
Christians the Muslims expanded this elitist identifier to include all who surrender to the collective of victims, irrespective of racial and ethnic origins – universal herd of victims.
That which contradicts or threatens the herd is, by definition, not of the ‘body of Christ,’ or an ‘evil’ that is not ‘of god.’
‘Nazi’ also represents what the modern/postmodern herd manimal fears the most, conflict, division, uncertainty, anything that challenges its imagined utopia of one mankind coexisting in peace and harmony. A term contradicting its uniform singularity.

Autist = coming into use in recent times, on internet sites, the term is manimal jargon describing someone who will not automatically sympathize with another’s plight, ergo he must be antipathizing or unable to sympathize – ergo, autistic.
Identifying a ‘defective herd member’ who will not submit to emotional appeals, i.e., emotional blackmail, to a degree required for subjectivity to usurp objectivity.
To a human bovine, anyone who refuses to automatically and impulsively fall in-line, or align with collective convictions and ethics, is incomprehensible, counterintuitive, therefore it must reduce it to a form it can integrate into its conventionally nihilistic understanding. Those who cannot be emotionally manipulated, cannot surrender to their sympathetic impulses must be psychosomatically defective, and antipathetic.

White privilege = manimal code for those who have been found guilty of challenging god’s will – primordial sin. [see God]
White = the new black. Satan’s evil minions. Tricksters.
Whites privileged by satanic forces, challenging the harmonious unification of mankind.
What the herd doesn’t know nor acknowledges, doesn’t exist, for the herd is world and world is the herd, therefore what the collective knows or accepts, determines its existence.
To be born privileged, within these bovine contexts, means to be born superior – with superior genetic potentials. A clear affront to a herd’s divine uniformity and oneness. All must collectively be lowered down to the lowest-common-denominator in order to produce Utopia, or Paradise on earth; humanity = world, so parity within the herd produces world harmony.
Divergence must remain illusory – a different manifestation of divine oneness.

Humanity = God = world, viz., collectivized mankind can ‘change the world by changing humanity,’ i.e., social engineering/eugenics/education. Ergo, if you censor or silence those who speaks contrary to the herd’s will – an evil act – you act on god’s behalf, as a member of the Divine.
Humanity = God; God = Humanity. Collectivized humanity increases the power of god.
A secular abstraction representing the concept of divine consciousness.
All biological diversity becomes aspects of a singular unity, a divine collective.

Freedom = salvation. There are some bovines that do not believe in salvation or that the world, i.e., humanity, can be redeemed. They are the most negative of nihilists – “pure nihilists”; they are the ones who deny themselves the gratification of vengeance – resentiment.
The most common of all nihilists are the ‘positive’ ones. Those that self-contradict, ergo, their positivity is negated by their desire to nullify whatever psychologically threatens them.
Herd psychology returns us back to its primal roots when disappearing within the herd determined the odds of an individual’s survival.
Bovines intuitively understand that standing outside the herd exposes them to a threatening world beyond, and that immersing within the herd – as close to the median, the centre, as possible – increases their survivability. In the context of order, the center is Divine, i.e., complete immersion within the herd/god. Conversely, the periphery, or the furthest point from the center, is a hazardous exposure to an indifferent and uncertain reality – a death sentence. Members of a herd struggle to attain the centre, the median, the proverbial heart of the intersubjective collective.
Freedom from the world, rather than freedom from the herd, or freedom from another. This is how they define ‘freedom’ in the contexts of Will. For the bovine freedom from the world is the only kind of freedom it can accept as worthy of being called ‘liberty.’ Freedom from causality, from existence, essentially. Absolute, complete, perfect, total freedom from all limitations.
Freedom from nature, ergo his definition of freedom is supernatural – negation of nature.
In what other way can a man define freedom, other than in this metaphysical way?

Uniformity = absolute chaos or absolute order, either one will produce uniformity; uniformity of possibilities means the absence of probabilities; all is equally possible and impossible, i.e., chaotic. Absolute order is another way of representing the absence of probabilities, but in this context, probabilities implode into a singular certainty – uniform probabilities.
Complete order is another way of describing the god of Abraham.
Those who deny free-will always mention the absence of another choice… the absence of a diversity of options.
Diversity is only tolerable if it is superficial or a ‘social construct,’ because what can be socially constructed can be socially deconstructed.
Superficiality indicates the illusion of diversity, ergo choice is an “illusion.”
Diversity reduces uniformity, and this is what they fear. The individual stands out, is exposed; is revealed. Herds must remain uniform in appearance, and in behaviour, acting as a singular organism.

Innocence = central to manimal identity is the concept of innocence. It is how they measure salvational worthiness. Free-will must be completely negated, or denied, so as to preserve worthiness. A signal to the other herd members that they are one of them – virtue signalling.
Denial of the primordial sin, of being born, gradually becoming aware of their participation in what is being determined – a cognitive reaction to becoming aware of themselves, relative to others, and their necessary involvement in the continuation of suffering.
Ouroboros – life must consume life, therefore to continue the experience of existing, both predator and prey must suffer. Price of remaining conscious.
Individual freedom of will would contradict the collective’s will, projected as cosmic order.
A perfect herd is a physical representation of metaphysical order. Anything that taints its perfection is to be negated, e.g., free-will, biological diversity, etc. If Adam were truly given agency, then he would have never been punished. A Biblical narrative warning man (Adam) against exercising his freedom of will, relative to god’s will, i.e., collective will, herds will.
The loss of “paradise” is a metaphor for the loss of the herd’s encompassing presence. All who contradict the herd’s collective will, will be ostracized – excluded, cast into the wilds, where Satan lurks. Nature is equated with evil, contrasting with the herd’s benevolent goodness.
A warning using verbiage that does not refer to morals/ethics, allowing atheist progressive leftists the option to declare themselves worthy of participating in the herd – shameless, guiltless… meaning without the ability to contradict the collective’s will. All its contradictions were not intentional, ergo they must deny their will’s freedom as a signal of their good intentions.
Abraham was asked to show his faith to god by sacrificing his son. Atheist, liberal bovines, are asked to sacrifice their ‘will.’ Whatever indiscretions they performed were not willful, they were unintentional, in accordance with god’s will, cosmic order. The individuated bovine casts the blame back upon the herd that bore it into existence, and nurtured it until it came of age. Whatever faults it has were caused by the herd’s nature and nurturing.

Equality = uniformity, parity. A concept that must be promoted to ensure a herd’s uniformity.
A civilized manimal is born equal, through the negating powers of absolute nil (tabula rasa ) – and is gradually corrupted, or shaped, or programmed by its environment: nurture with no nature.
This is what leads to disparate outcomes. Nothing inherited, nothing genetic, it must be social.
A degenerate can blame the herd for tis own degeneracy, and the herd can bear the burden by allocating it evenly or casting it upon the abstraction of its collectivity. The role of scapegoat is part of Jewish spiritual heritage, and this is what is being preserved, albeit in a secular form.
God is transformed into an abstraction of mankind, who is then the ultimate scapegoat for the individual’s inherited or cultivated faults.
Within the premises of a herd’s intersubjective worldview, all are born equal, i.e., in the image of the divine one, and are subsequently corrupted by corporeality – physical corruptive evilness, the body manifesting undesirable differences, what the Abrahamics refer to as the “fallen state,” or what Christian’s refer to as the ‘loss of Eden.”
Ideological equality is always theoretically perfect, and is exposed as imperfect only if it is applied – converted to actions – in the real world – ergo it cannot be applied without being corrupted – remaining eternally pure in theory; the experienced world must be blamed for its consistent failure to manifest the ideology’s divine perfection.
A method used by Marxists, as worthy inheritors of Christian tactics, converted to their secular needs. Marxists consistently blame the proletariat, for failing to validate Marx’s predictions, or blame those who failed to accurately understand and apply their Communist utopian ideology.
The ideology remains ‘perfect, in theory,’ but flawed in application, so that it can continue on for centuries, like Abrahamism.
Consequently, every individual bovine is an imperfect reflection of the herd’s perfect ideal – straight out of Platonism. Through its idealized perfection an individuated manimal is redeemed, or purified, i.e., absolved of all responsibilities. All are equally imperfect in and through the cleansing powers of the nil.
Equality preserves bovine herd harmony – what discrepancies remain in the form of hierarchies are due to divine providence. Through equality past is erased – i.e., denied relevance, negated, and dismissed as a matter of fate (chance) – or it is converted to an eternally immanent inevitability that can never be blemished by becoming present.
All are born within the spiritual body’s perfection as equal victims of its all-encompassing dominion; all are victims of causality and, therefore, equally vulnerable and insecure – equality in and through frailty. If men can never be absolutely powerful, i.e., omnipotent, then they must be absolutely powerless; if they cannot be absolutely potent, then they must be absolutely impotent. Either/Or: all (whole, complete, singular thingness) or no-thingness. Equalization via negation – omnipotent power of nil. If it cannot prove itself to be ONE then all is NIL. Parity is preserved in and through the nil. The only alternative is inclusion within collective pretenses, arbitrarily and partially protecting individuals from an uncertain and indifferent world.

Nigger = euphemistic toponomy. A term adopted by ex-slaves to linguistically transform their shame into pride – a defining characteristic of nihilism is how it inverts meanings by concealing their connections to reality. ‘Nigger’ expresses this humble/pride, or proud/humility, as a historical byproduct of degeneration and separation – describing a state of mind that both demands and expects much from a dominant system, men despise because they are forced, by their own needs, to surrender to.
This love/hatred is a typical side-effect of psyches that have lost all connections to their past, i.e., heritage, via the father. With no past they identify with skin pigmentation, e.g., black – a generalized vague term referring to a broad geographical local – or white. A method also adopted by ‘whites’ who have experienced disconnections from their own European heritage, either due to an absent father, or miscegenation, expressing subtle resentment towards their biological fathers, or due to insecurities derived from feeling inadequate to compete with their own kind, or to meet their own kind’s cultural standards.
With no clear and definite identity hedonism becomes an alternate and certain source of self-identification.

Money = Messiah. Divine emancipator – salvation giver. Salvation from what? From an impoverished, shameful or undesirable past. Past as the sum of all nurturing; past as the determined immutable, determining presence, interpreted as appearance.
Salvation from the tangible, e.g., the physical, corporeal, from the body, as a representation of a past made present; a constant reminder of the past that must be forgotten, because it cannot be changed; money, offering means of concealment, to aid forgetfulness (Lethe).
Money is Americanism’s Messianic mission, viz., open markets, open borders, destruction of all genetic identifiers, denial of anything that divides and distinguishes, if it does not come form the system. Identity purchased on the markets, from institutionally sanctioned vendors.
All willing participants gaining access to these products via money – wealth determined by their faithfulness to shared lies.
Once more: God = collective, that must be seduced, coerced or bribed into appreciating an individual’s contributions. God’s approval is the collective’s approval, expressed through money.

never say that

never

ever

The objective exposes the motive.
The motive exposes the man.

All value judgements refer to objectives.
A product of triangulation between subject, its objective and the effort, it estimates, is required to attain it.

Words like ‘free, strong, powerful, tall, fast, precious, beautiful,’ are all evaluations - qualifiers - of the concepts they refer to.

The definition we CHOOSE to adopt, or the manner by which we construct our definitions of terms (representing concepts), also expose our motives and our nature.

If we do not like freedom because of the price, risks, or the responsibilities or the uncertainties it necessitates, casting a shadow over our ego, then we CHOOSE a definition - whether it be conventional or not - that serves our purposes.

If it is clarity or engaging reality, as it is, or if it is evasion, escape, is the determining factor.
The motive.

In the case of free-will deniers, the motive is stated…prevention of regrets, or blame, or peace on earth, or human unity… not truth…not clarity…not integrity.

But when it comes to actions… well then things are different, aren’t they?
Not much room for bullshyte and duplicitousness then.
Self-deceit can only convince those looking for excuses or comforting lies.

Actions, have a price and it is not affected by your deceptive terminologies.

Consciousness is a terrible burden in a world that demands sleep.

Judeo-puritanism sounds like an oxymoron to me, considering the foundational elements of Judaism and Puritannicalism for their seemingly opposing extremes. But like you said,

So I cannot claim some ideal of definition against all argument, even with dictionary in hand. But I do think there is enormous value in clarity of engagement with reality. But for lack of parity among thoughts, such clarity cannot be broadly achieved.

Your use of “bovine” in reference to man is so apt in a world where our rulers see us as cattle. But I would like to comment on some of your other definitions as presented…

God
I think the only thing lacking from your definition of God is the concept of authority, that the collective man has the divine right to determine reality in the face of the few who would oppose the righteous masses.

Nazi
Nazi is just a new slur for one who disagrees with the dominating narrative of the rulers. A markedly evil “anti-herd pack member” sums it up fairly effectively, although the label would be applied primarily to one whose membership is in need of being revoked, by popular consensus.

Autist
I just really like what you had to say about this and wanted to say so. It is becoming a self-applied label to individuals seeking exception for their awful behaviors and thus losing its meaningfulness for those who genuinely bear the deficiency.

Innocence
Again, I like what you said about it, but for the agnostic, salvation is irrelevant. My innocence is not preserved for the sake of deistic approval, it is for my own. I would like to think I am not completely alone in valuing a principle of non-violation, but I don’t know anything.

Money
This one I disagree with. Messiah? Hardly. It is quantifiable possession of resources widely agreed upon. If I have all the wood and there are no trees left, then my lumber is prized. But if I create blutop and am the singular possessor thereof, I must convince all others of it’s desirability. Once blutop becomes the medium of exchange, others are convinced and I have power as though I owned all trees. I suppose that would make me as God, creating value from nothing, except that the value I hold was not created, only transferred. Such is money.

Do terminologies have a price or any impact on actions?

Judaism is closest to Protestantism.
Read Heisman’s Suicide Note.
What Judaism detests about Catholicism and Orthodoxy is not only the denial of its spiritual elitism - its choseness - but the remnants of Hellenism in its traditions. Mainly Platonism.
Judaism is the antithesis of Hellenism… so any hint of it is intolerable to the Jews, and Judaized minds.
Platonism is the link that synthesizes two contrary worldviews.
Are we not ‘goy’ - cattle - to them?
Our Hellenic tolerance is disadvantageous when dealing with nihilistic parasites.

Money = an abstraction of Jesus…
Money is used to overcome unfit, impoverished genetic inheritance.

When you understand how the Abrahamic conception of god has been secularized into humanity, collectives, then you will understand what money is.
If god = humanity; humanity = god, then how does humanity show approval for individual perveances?
Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” should prove useful here.

Yes… .terminologies have consequences.
Conventional definitions, guided by nihilistic motives, postpone these consequences by evenly distributing them among the collective.
This creates an ephemeral delusion that there are no negative consequences to wrongly defining concepts.
Over time the collective cannot absorb the negative consequences, and it begins to crumble.

Oftentimes a definition aids the collective in controlling tis members, a s in the case of free-will.
A slave that has been convinced that freedom is a myth - because it has been defined by tis masters in supernatural ways - will be the most reliable of all slaves.

I believe there are common misunderstandings in much of philosophy when it comes to the notion of God. As how I see it, God is a symbolic idea-construct that holds abstraction and thought at a certain level orienting it toward the more transcendent, and this can also be the case with the notion of gods instead of a singular God. Gods or God, these are ideas that spur man’s consciousness toward the transcendent and away from collapse into mere materiality (living with only our five senses and animal instincts).

That being said, the notion of God also serves other important functions in society, or we might say it served these functions which were important in the past. Authority as you point out, is helpful for maintaining social order, norms and moral expectations. Successful division of labor between men and women was critical for societies to thrive in the inter-societal, inter-cultural conflicts of the past. Those societies that were more positively and negatively ethnocentric tended to survive better over time. This is one reason that history is so brutal and full of genocide, war, murder of outsiders, hanging criminals in public, burning ‘witches’, etc.

Whether we like it or not, these sort of things were naturally selected for within the context of evolution over thousands of years. That is why they are still so prevalent today in the modern world, even as we might argue these traits and ways of thinking are less and less relevant and important. But they are certainly not entirely unimportant either. And even if one thought they were unimportant, it can be argued that abandoning religiosity leads people to embrace other forms of quasi-religiosity anyway as they have yet to overcome their deeper ‘religious instinct’ which is still compelling them more or less blindly toward the greater transcendent possibilities within the broader universe of ideas.

The idea of God also acts as a stand-in and elevation of value for important concepts like: purity, strength, goodness, right and truth, forgiveness and grace (in Christianity), and obedience. All of these are or at were important to social cohesion and survival in the past. In essence, the idea of God reflects all 5 of the moral dimensions identified by Haidt: safety, fairness, loyalty, authority and purity. Religious ideas are essentially works of art that serve many functions, but one of them is to uphold certain ideas at high levels of value within society and for the individual.

By thinking there is a divine being somewhere watching you or who may punish you here or in the next life, you are more likely to follow whatever moral codes are associated with that being. So religious belief (as opposed to simply respect) has also been selected for in an evolutionary sense.

You may also find this interesting:

This is one reason liberals and conservatives have such a hard time relating to one another. But on a higher level, conservatives are able to understand liberals in a way that liberals are not able to understand conservatives, because at least on a more abstract level conservatives are operating on a foundation of all 5 moral dimensions, whereas the liberal tends to operate more on a foundation of only the first two.

HumAnize, I like you. I respect you and the thoughts you provide. Please do not take the following personally in light of that.

What is transcendent, and what does it aspire to transcend? What is above all that all could grasp its value? Is it only functionality? Is transcendence nothing more than the ideals to which a society is presupposed to attain? Is history really so religious, such that deity defines all outcomes?

Are these notions still so important that the archaic becomes again relevant? In the face of subjective morality, what prominence is merited by dubious deity?

Purity is plain and simple, questioning of that is facetious at best. Strength is obvious and clearly portrayed. Goodness again needs definition. Right and truth? Also so subject. Forgiveness and grace should exceed definition, the understanding should be sublime. If one cannot conceive these, it signals irreparable lack of potential for human connection.

If one cannot understand their missteps, they are hopeless. Years in prison do nothing but burden the taxpayers.

What is transcendent, what does it aspire to transcend? Good questions. Without moving in this direction progress would be impossible and philosophy would stall, so I respect your instinct to inquire here rather than pass by or assume in either direction. What I mean by transcendent is the climb toward more universal, comprehensive and true thought. And not only thought but also feeling, emotion and understanding. Meaning. Value.

For example, as I see it there exists a universe of ideas or you can think of that in terms of the sum total of all facts. Facts are not only linear but stack up within and through each other, nesting like Russian dolls. Some facts lead to more comprehensive facts, etc. Philosophy is in one respect the task of attempting to encapsulate as much as possible, and as accurately as possible, this unverse of ideas within oneself and which in truth is really what we mean when we say “mind” or mentality. This dips a bit into theory of mind and consciousness, but the key take away here is that the mind is something made out of itself… this means that not only does not mind HAVE thoughts but our mind also equals the sum total of all thoughts it has had and is having, as the present moment incorporates much about the past through active engagement with our memories.

If you can see or accept a bit about this notion of mind and consciousness, then see how it relates to the universe of ideas (facts themselves) to form out ‘thoughts’ and the actual ideas we subjectively experience within our own self as the active “I” self-experiencing thing that we are, then focus in on the relationship between the mind (specifically incorporating an awareness too of the physical brain and neurological systems underpinning mental action) and the facts or ideas themselves. I like to use the example of photosynthesis: does a dog looking at a tree know anything about photosynthesis? No. Does it even know what a tree is? No. Does it have some mental concept or construct for ‘tree’ in a generalized sense? Probably yes, I am sure dogs are able to pattern-recognize trees (to a degree) against a background noise or juxtaposition of other types of objects, but does the dog either A) highly differentiate types of trees, B) have an understanding of what a tree really is or what it means to be a tree, C) have a more consistent and fleshed-out mental relationship of meaning that includes itself the dog and the tree, such that within the context of this relationship of meaning other, higher and more derivative levels of understanding can begin to appear as logic is applied, i.e. realizations such as “I could use this for shelter” or “I could use this to make a fire”?

No, dogs don’t have any of that. Why not? Because the mind of a dog is not oriented toward the transcendent in the way that human minds are. Here transcendence means knowledge, understanding, comprehensivity and sensitivity to facts as such, a respect for truth as such and for its own sake and even the basic possibiltity of having a category in one’s own mind for “truths” as opposed to non-truths. This is why dogs have no comprehension of something like photosynthesis, and why dogs live in the collapsed mentality of the immediate here and now via their immediate biological senses and animal instincts.

As humans, we should aspire to more than that and we obviously do. But transcendentality within mentality goes beyond basic self-consciousness, language, and scientific understandings. It also moves into the poetic, the artistic, the emotional, the political, the economic, the imaginative, and beyond. What is beyond these domains? Pure possibilities as such, things like “ghosts, spirits, other worlds, psychic abilities, out of body experiences, other dimensions, gods and higher beings, etc” simply because we cannot rule any of these out absolutely as being certainly false. Therefore, retaining some degree of pure possibility, their investigation is warranted and they cannot be dismissed from mentality, and yet most of us have limited or no experience with such things therefore tend to dismiss them as false or unimportant. But if you think about it more logically and objectively, the fact that humans have been reporting experiences like this forever certainly justified some kind of active and honest engagement with the notions in terms of their pure possibilities. So imagine if humans are like that dog, we have almost no understanding of the wider reality around us because we choose to focus only on the here and now that we can immediately verify, and dismiss things that are beyond this immediate verification.

Not only all of that but philosophy itself. The broadest, deepest questions that touch on the very meaning of what it means to be human. Justice, love, the proper type of society, morality, truth, metaphysics and the nature of reality. All of these very deep issues beg for serious investigation and are all seated at higher, more transcendent (derivative, comprehensive) layers within the universe of ideas / sum total of all facts as such. As Kierkegaard said with his notion of the Leap of Faith, sometimes we can only learn or begin to approach something authentically by choosing to assume something on faith and then see where that goes. Take a calculated or educated guess. This is a form of hypothesis testing on the level of philosophy and ideas, as opposed to empirically.

The human mind should be actively engaged in all of these critical areas, not merely focused on the immediate physical sensations of the here and now that can be seen, touched etc. If you lament modern society for its shallowness, its inauthenticity and low level of intelligence, then what you truly lament is a loss of orientation toward the transcendent. This loss is something that more and more people are suffering from, as they become more and more hedonistic, materialistic and secular. God may not be necessary to lead a mind to more transcendent directions and explorations, but at least it played a critical part in this in the past. Not to say there are not other serious problems with the ideas of God, since they can also lead to irrationalities and other mental and emotional problems.

I personally believe we should be utilizing philosophy to directly explore and approach the terra incognita of the transcendent, the hic sont dracones of not only the mind and its untapped regions and possibilities but the fact of how these directly correlate to and relate to the same types of unknown possibilities and hidden spaces within reality itself. If God has been useful to sustain humanity in some degree of relationship to all that, then great. But ultimately God himself needs to be included within the meaning-space of the universe of ideas under investigation, not only utilized as a potentiating mechanism for keeping the human mind from collapsing back into the mere animality and lower more reactive consciousness from which it came.

Again, I like you and I mean no disrespect. I have misgivings for the use of Latin, but yours seemed appropriate and well-intentioned. Allow me to reiterate that this is no personal attack, but a blunt reflection on what you have posted for the intrinsic value I perceive therein.

These are all so vague in their definitions, words to invoke feelings without meaning as a politician might say at the podium in hopes of gaining sway.

This presumes an MO consistent among bipedal hominids, which we can prove is not the case by simple observation. Why are some criminals so different from the rest? What is the mentality that disregards common law? It has no regard for precedent, it seems, and those who run most afoul are questioned for their competency in standing trial.

I bet my puppy could differentiate between a birch and and douglas fir. He’s super smart and I love him, but I digress…

And here you delve into the incomprehensible. What is truth such that you could differentiate it from non-truths as opposed to lies? Would you imply my puppy has the capacity to lie to me? And if he does, is it for malice or ignorance? How could you say based on guesses and approximations?

As a carpenter who hits the nail on the head, here you struck directly. What does it mean to be human? I would contend we are animals far exceeding our established bounds. Hence society, hence civilization. All manner of resisting the nature for which we were intended.

Is that so? Do I seek God unknowingly? Do I seek something higher yet unachieved? Or do I see only regression and destruction from a creature with the capacity to destroy to the utmost?

We are animals. Our greatest fault may lie in the over achievement of consciousness such that we have raised ourselves so far above what we are.

I apologize for the delay, I have been searching for a particular quote that I wanted to use here. Finally, I found it. Allow this to suffice for now as a response to your questions, although I will write more in a bit.

“The modern view, which has succeeded in inflating the misunderstanding of the affective surplus, along with a misunderstanding of man’s relationship to the natural endowment of his drives and instincts, into a very well organized affront upon the shared dignity of our humanity, must be called into the light. The common view of the human being at this point in our history is the following: man is nothing more than a kind of programmable automaton, nothing more than a puppet mindlessly pulled this way and that upon the strings of the presiding cultural mandate, blind in all cases to the puppeteer, for there is no puppeteer, and the strings are all there is or could be- a being hopelessly compelled, namely by those systems of class struggle and of social hierarchization which it has unconsciously internalized, by the external polis which it has mirrored and integrated into the very structure of its own psyche and libidinal-motive complex, toward the madness of embracing the source of its very oppression and suffering as the object of a long cherished reverence; a being with nothing of the power by which it might exercise the slightest modicum of control over its own destiny, and whose ultimate fate it is to repeat, in quite a Sisyphean fashion, the sins of its father and of its father’s father; a being for whom there is not nor can ever be a genuine morality to stir the heart, for whom there is no ideal toward which to strive, no philosophy in which to discover a greater meaning and order of things, and no purpose about which to struggle, suffer, rejoice, live, or die, for existence stands in their mind as a reality logically situated prior to any essence, the love and ideal toward which we might strive being such things as could never precede and thereby serve as a basis for our actions- for that existence which, antedating them, they can never return into through the katabasis of a daemonic descent into the first inwardness and the ground of Being- a love and a striving that must always venture hopelessly outward, stretching themselves thin and evaporating into the night of oblivion, into non-entity, into the nothingness of a universe lacking any center. For those who hold to these views of mere psychology, sociology, and critical theory, there is no tenable species of individualism, for there is no individual; the individual is but an unthinking, unconscious concatenation of social forces and evolutionary missteps, an unreflected internalization of the structure of the class-struggle, a compendium of propaganda and self-deceits, with nothing of a soul, nothing of a self, nothing of a personhood. No argument needs to be made against the kind of nonsense which these people have developed in their pseudo-academic stupor; one only needs to cast his gaze inwardly and draw upon the self-evidence of the immediate phenomenon of self-consciousness to refute it, namely the phenomena I call the daemonic- at least to refute it for one’s self. Perhaps this view of human nature is quite accurate, if only with regard to those who promulgate it.” -Parodites

…To your first point, when I use words like feeling, emotion, understanding, meaning and value I mean very precise things, very clear definition that are not vague, at least not in my own mind and how I view and understand them. Which is not to say that translating this understanding into words of explanation is always easy or adequate. But it strikes me as odd that you assume these words “feeling, emotion, understanding, meaning, value” are merely invoking feelings without meaning (irony aside that you utilize two of the very ‘vague’ words themselves to explain their “vagueness”) as if being spoken by a politician who has no goal other than to sway and gain influence and support of the people to whom he is speaking.

I am engaged in philosophy, not demagoguery or rhetoric or politicking. You can base your assumptions on this fact, and see my use of language as, at least in my attempt, a finely tuned machine of precision meanings touching upon delimited understandings and concept-spaces for which I am always happy to offer a further explanation or attempt at sufficient definition. For example:

by “feeling” I mean physical sensations we experience as part of our bodies, including pleasure and pain, warmth and cold, pressure, sleepiness, hunger, sexual desire, etc.

by “emotion” I mean something like a reification and broadening, also sublimation of those biological feelings not least in terms of there occurring a combination of multiple such underlying feelings in the same moment of time and this combination being associated with a particular image, object or meaning, for example “anxiety” that people may feel upon being asked to give a public speech can be understood in part as a combination of the feeling of hormones that cause discomforted feelings in the stomach, cramping etc. as well as raising blood pressure through inducing a sort of fight or flight reaction, all of which physical sensations are felt proprioceptively and basically at once by us as less distinct and more unified in a singular experience as refer to as “anxiety” for example, and which is also paired with a conceptual meaning that can be articulated in language, for instance something like “I feel nervous, I don’t want to do this speech” or simply an inner voice speaking to oneself “fuck, it’s my turn to present to the class.” Emotions are often this kind of summative, proprioceptive combination of many physical bodily sensations-feelings not only reduced in time and experienced in a novel way as what essentially feels to us as a single feeling, but endowed with broader context, meaning and substance which stretches far beyond the emotional experience itself and enlivens it with color, purpose, greater function and possibility, more motivation, etc.

by “understanding” I mean seeing, embracing and incorporating facts or truths for their own sake and within their own proper context and ways in which they are actually true and real, and significant, but also in terms of our minds being able to incorporate and integrate this understanding, these “ideas” which are reflections-images and neurologically-correlated storage of certain facts, truths, experiences, images in our mind, etc., into our mind itself at the level of ideation, derivation, and even driving purpose and motivation on our part. To understand something is to really grasp its necessary and sufficient meaning, for itself and by itself but also in terms of the contexts in which it properly applies, as well as some sense for its own causal deterministinic history and precisely why it is as it is rather than otherwise, and also how this entire space of understanding or knowledge of that which is understood might be useful or relevant to us personally or to the world around us. If I am a child and I have a moment of understanding looking at a car zooming by on the street “wow if that hits me it will really hurt” I just created a new knowledge in and as part of my mind, an association of badness with the phenomenon of cars moving quickly and me being hit by said car. This can be considered a basic understanding, something that may not have existed in that little kid’s mind until that moment when he had the experience and finally understood this fact. Understanding is basically linked to knowledge, epistemology and all that side of philosophy, which we can get into if that’s what you are interested in here. But in terms of transcendence, knowledge and understanding should be seen as markers or points along a gradated, continuum-like climb from lesser to greater, with greater or higher points along this climb reflecting more broad, complete, accurate, comprehensive, and meaningful facts-truths as compared to ones that are smaller, less complete, less accurate, less comprehensive and less meaningful to us.

by “meaning” I mean something like the impact an experience has on us, the substance of it and how much and in what ways it affects us especially by causing or motivating changes in our actions, thoughts, decisions, etc. and how much emotional, cognitive or biological-physical energy and response occurs as a result of said meaning. To each person, the same thing many mean vastly different things. Meaning is like the core or center, the inner substance and vitality that is touched upon and which impacts upon us to induce changes. If something means little or nothing to us, we barely register it; if something has a great deal of meaning to us it can affect us most intensely, violently, passionately, inspiring us in profound ways. Meaning is tied into truth and could be attempted to be described as something like an intersection between reality=truth on the one hand and self=subjective experience and the entire constellation of psychological, emotional, instinctual, cognitive etc. functions arising out of this, on the other hand.

by “value” I mean something similar to meaning but more simplified into almost a truism, which can be grasped closely to the term “use” or “utility-to” and which always necessarily includes the “value to whom” or “value, why?” attached to it. No thing has value in a vacuum, everything has value in relation to other things and to entities like us who are capable of valuing something for one reason or another. I value this conversation because I enjoy interacting with intelligent people within the space of philosophical ideas and discussion, and I enjoy writing, and I enjoy thinking about truths and trying to better understand them in my mind, for example. Other people may not value any of that, and it’s no surprise they aren’t here like we are. Value is like “immediate-level importance-to” and always exists within a framework including how’s, why’s, and for-whom’s. If a thing has value it can or will be sought after or find itself desirable or marked as worthwhile relative to the valuing-capable entity’s personal attribution of how much value it has relative to other things and in what ways it is valuable or may be potentially valuable in other situations.

In any case, it seems like these words, despite being perhaps more on the complex side in their meaning-spaces and definitions, are certainly far from any kind of attempt to merely sway influence or manipulate sentiment in others. They have real, delimited meanings and should be understood in those terms. At least that is how I am attempting to use them.

1 Like

Victim Hierarchy.

Double standards across the board. Weakness seeks strength through its victim identity.
Feminine method.
See Israel and what it is doing in Palestine…under the protection of the US.

They can abuse Palestinians for decades, and Palestinians cannot fight back.
They can take their lands and Palestinians must accept it, because of some superstitious book written by them…claiming to be the word of god.

Palestinians are more Semites than many of the Jews living in Israel or in the States and Europe.
So, half-breed Semites are massacring full blooded Semites, and if anyone critiques them, they are accused of being anti-Semites.
:open_mouth:

See how fucked up western man has become…how brainwashed and linguistically manipulated?

They deny free-will, using supernatural metaphysical standards, but do not apply the same metaphysical standards to the concept of a strong will…or any other qualifier.

The key is language…this is their magical power: using words/symbols to exploit and manipulate humanity’s existential anxieties and their weaknesses…their stupidity and their fears.

No need to.

I feel like some portion of this went over my head, and it doesn’t take much to do so because I’m fairly short, but this quote strikes me as kind of depressing to consider. I doubt my comprehension of it.

My lucidity varies. I like words and the use of them, but in so doing I always run the risk of exposing how stupid I am. And ya got me.

But for the rest of your post, I applaud your definitions. I appreciate your expounding. I wish more people could and would explain themselves further in a manner that stands to reason. I wish more people could and would ask for such explanation, prepared to receive it, for what they read/are told but can admit they don’t fully understand.

1 Like

Thought experiment…

What if you heard of a woman who had been kicked out of every house she had lived in.
Over 100 times she had been evicted.

What would be your first presumption?
That the landlords were bigots?
That she’s been misunderstood, and wrongly blamed?

Would you consider the possibility that she was, at least, partly responsible for what happened to her?
Would you rent your house to her? Would you trust her?

Oh, I know I am defective.

Why keep putting yourself down though, why not accept where you are, and start building yourself up from there? Philosophy is the perfect way to do that. By pursuing truth at all costs and for its own sake you construct a crucible in which all of your falsehoods, errors, imperfections and impurities will be set ablaze. Not necessarily to burn away entirely, although some do, but at least to be made more visible and thus easier to both understand and avoid.

And by extension materialism.

:slightly_smiling_face:

I see overlap between acceptance and defeat. If I get puffed up, I am quickly flattened. Seems prudent to just stay down.

Someone with your mind and way with words should be writing and exploring ideas. I suppose you can still do that with a defeatist attitude.

Self-Deception is a sign of a herd infected by a parasite, carrying a nihilistic virus.
Zombification is another. Detachment from reality, experienced as pleasure.

Self-contradiction is another symptom of mind-body dissonance - of being infected.
They act contrary to what they say, or believe.

Self-destrutive behaviour is another symptom.
They act in ways that decrease the probability of their survival and reproduction.