Okay…seriously?
=D>
you are a clown, i wont waste anymore time on you
In a world full of meaning - interconnectivity - and no purpose - no telos - would it not serve man - as it would any organism - to create a purpose so as to focus its energies?
Would not such a focus upon an objective be called an ideal?
Would not this ideal cultivate particular kinds of traits, developing a particular kind of man?
Would not such an objective - ideal - not be evaluated as attainable, or useful, within natural order, or how it relates to an existence that lacks objectives and ideals?
Are not, all value judgments, such triangulations between a willful subject, a projected objective and the world both exist within?
But, what if the objective were placed 'outside existence - in non-existence - so as to cultivate a particular kind of subject?
Is this not why concepts, using the terms that represent them, have now been defined out of existence?
Concepts like ‘god’…like ‘morality’…like ‘free-will’…like ‘love’…like ‘race’…like ‘gender’…like ‘identity’…
What would be the motive of defining such concepts in ways that make them unattainable, incomprehensible, meaningless ideals?
What is the difference between Hellenic and Nihilistic, e.g., Abrahamic, Buddhist, Asceticism?
Hellenic asceticism is a means to an end…Abrahamism makes asceticism an end, suffering and self-deprivation signaling worthiness, where hedonism becomes a signaling of its rejection.
People, particularly moderns, love to be fooled.
Entire industries exist based on fooling them.
They want to be fooled, but convincingly. they want to participation in the deceit, no responsibility.
They will pay those who can fool them convincingly.
Why?
Because reality - existence - is too much for them to bear.
The brain’s utility is preservation of the organism, and if lies and deceit accomplish this then lies and deceit will be adopted.
This is its primal, primary objective.
But then, some minds emerge that do not place preservation at the top of their objectives.
For such minds deceit is not desirable…and will only pay for clarity, for what is called ‘truth’, rather than lies, no matter what the risks to its well-being.
This is objectivity.
This is what makes a true philosopher.
This is what has been called the aristocratic ethos.
The former often mistake the latter for being just like them…because to their subjective psyche the idea of placing something other than survival on the top, is unthinkable…incomprehensible…so they don’t believe their claims, believing instead that they harbour ulterior motives or that they have discovered another strategy to increase survivability.
The concept of objectivity is so alien to these manimals that they would sooner believe in Abraham’s god, or ghosts, or reptilians in the White House than believe such minds exist.
The objective of philosophy is the real.
Not the ideal.
Philosophy describes and defines what is, not what ought to be, or what one wishes.
From this exploration of what is then one can proceed to express a preference, an objective, limited by this ‘is’ or reality.
The ideal cannot be defined out of existence, and then the hypocritical, naive, idealists, cannot force the real to adapt.
This is not thinking this is emoting.
This is inverting the process…nihilism,.
This is top<>down emoting.
Bottom<>Up reasoning begins with what is, and then proceeds to formulate a plan, a course of action, to bring about its objective, now placed within the realm of the real.
Therefore, it begins with the act, not the word, not text, not a concept.
A mind with integrity begins with the experienced, and then places his objectives within it.
I know existence better than you lorikeet.
It is as cold and heartless as you say it is.
You prattle on about survival. People kill themselves:
Is that an evolutionary advantage?
Where did existential angst like this come from in a universe bent on survival?
I’ve seen many fit people commit suicide.
It is not a cowards way out…
It is a step into the unknown. It is fearless.
But here you are on a message board prattling on about how fit you are. How brave you are.
The only reason I don’t commit suicide is because I know we were never born and we never die.
And if I can’t solve it here, I can’t solve it anywhere.
I made the earth my temporary home.
Messiah has spoken.
Nature is solved and corrected.
Join the club of ILP messiahs…all of them, cohen-cidentally, belonging to the genitally mutilated ones.
Maybe you can explain to peacegirl why suicide is in the interests of the actor, and how it fits into her hedonistic pleasure principle scheme.
Did they choose what they could not have not chosen? They had no free-will.
Don’t you know that love is an absolute?
Love Ontology
She will bring about peace on earth, and you will solve the consent problem.
You two should form a cabal.
ILP Messiah Cabal.
Bringing about Tikkun Olam.
You’re deflecting. PG was disproven by me years ago. She even told me I don’t have the right to read her book.
This is about you though. Why don’t you commit suicide?
Plenty of extremely fit people have.
You fancy yourself an evolutionary psychologist.
Tell me why.
Crazy…that would require me wasting more of my time on you.
I will not explain why women say no, when they want to say yes, and yes, when they want to say no.
And, I will not explain why man, of all species, is the animal that can wilfully choose to end its own life.
Maybe in the course of my posting it’ll come up…but to you, directly, I will not bother.
You are insane.
Might as well talk to the wall.
That’s called, “you got nothing”
Prove how I’m insane.
Exhibit A: You refuse to dedicate a song on piano, on video, to me.
This could be evidence of sanity or insanity. Let the jury decide.
All these diversions to mask the ontological subscription, and that mask ( of sanity) works for a while, bay, the microsecond on a minutely regressive degree to the anti-mattered absolute.
Reverse this conondrum, and you may get the picture, albeit , naturally reversely: ex-post-facto.
For, if progressive deometric triungalated calculations do form the coincidenntial juxtipositioned triangles to form an interesting image, like the hexagram, then the evolutionary progression justifies the trigonometric inversion.
It is not for nought that Abrahanism becomes its symbolic designator.
There are innumerable connections in review
The syncretic flow reversely represents the evolutionary process toward the absolutely necessary , non sensible image, and such inversion shows the optically illusive revered image between the object and its horizontally (literal) image.
The flow, reversely progressing into the sensible, progressive configuration toward the objectively possible.
The progressive and regressiive processes form the limits of the objective sensible ideal.
The ideal, forever protected in my mind, from the unyielding real, beyond it.
The ideal, where Abraham’s one-god was located, and Schopenhauer’s Will…in some ‘outside space/time’ realm of the mind.
Kant’s ‘thing-in-itself’ implies it, choosing the term ‘thing’ and 'in-itself- to complete the circularity of wholeness.
The human mind needs completeness, even if obscure and mystical. It needs something to name and by naming it make it more intimate.
Organic life needs absolutes, so it fabricates them, converting fluctuating uncertainties into abstract certainties - infinitely reducible, fragmented, yet part of a complete, enclosed whole.
All inclusivity.
The idea of open-endedness, Faustian; the idea of p[articiapting in what is being determined with every act, every judgment, every choice, is terrifying.
it is in our programming to make sure both sides of the equation are balanced, because you navigate reality better if you test its structural integrity first
Contradiction is always the proof of error. Paradox is a question/problem with an answer/solution you don’t have …yet.
Concealed beneath an annihilating, obscuring, comforting ideal, the real still remains unaffected- exposing itself in the subtle, the seemingly inconsequential, the redefined conventional full of excuses and silencing threats.
Fear lying beneath these love displays, signalling virtuousness - worthiness to be included; to be absolved and purified; to be liberated from shame and responsibility; to be saved from mortality.
The stakes are high.
Pascal’s Wager, pretending a win/win scenario.
Who but the gullible would not see what is being sacrificed, gambled away…lost forever to humbly arrogant self-intoxications - gamblers rush making it all worth-while.
The ideal is always in the mind - subjective.
The real is always beyond, outside, and including, the mind - objective.
To span the distance the subject must abandon its subjective needs/desires, as long as it can maintain it…attaining clarity.
